Beyond Racial Division: A Review of George Yancey’s Hopeful Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism
When I first began reading George Yancey's new book a few weeks ago, one of the most striking thoughts that came to me was how simple yet challenging his solution to racial division is. Often we make solutions overly complex, or we easily get lost in the weeds of specific policy debates, economic philosophy, statistical analysis, and legal theories. Those conversations have merit, but they're also an awful starting place. Yancey starts where we, as a society, need to start. Yancey begins by suggesting that we listen to one another, and he suggests that we cannot heal division by more division. It's at the same time an obvious but also a necessary starting place.
In Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative To Colorblindness and Antiracism, Baylor University sociologist George Yancey attempts to provide, as the title suggests, an alternative to both the colorblind and the antiracism approach to racial division. Although both the colorblind and the antiracism view offers some good ideas, Yancey argues that both fail in various ways to provide a unifying approach. He charitably gives credit where credit is due but is also unafraid to challenge various harmful and divisive ideas connected to both views. He encourages active listening, cooperation, and rejects exclusively considering only some select voices.
In many ways, this models for us not only a faithful way of addressing racial division but division in general.
The Models
Colorblindness is the idea that racial division can be solved simply by ignoring or denying any racial differences. This approach, as Yancey describes, can be helpful in some limited ways. For example, if an overt racist began to see all races as equal and stopped "seeing" color, that would effectively solve that particular example of racism. However, this view utterly fails to address structural problems and ignores the hurtful, structurally, and personally racist experiences of people of color. Colorblindness can only go so far, and while it may address some specific problems, it also creates new problems while ignoring others.
This approach also tends to deny the reality of systemic or structural forms of racism. Instead, to the colorblind, racism is strictly a personal problem.
In contrast to this view, Yancey does an excellent job in chapter three explaining various forms of institutional racial prejudice from both historical and contemporary examples. This is of particular importance because it's become far too common to balk at the idea of systemic racism. Whether it's conflating systemic racism with Critical Race Theory, erroneously labeling the idea as "Marxist," or just as erroneously rejecting the idea that Scripture assigns morality to laws and institutions, systemic racism has needlessly become a controversial topic within evangelicalism. Yancey, clearly and patiently, shows how this idea is not only a reality but also how it shouldn't even be a contentious issue. As he writes;
Colorblindness does not describe our social reality. People of color are not making up stories about their experiences of racism. There are real issues to which they are reacting. To tell them to ignore not only the lasting effects of historical racism but also the continuing impact of institutional discrimination and contemporary prejudice is not realistic."
It's important to note that Yancey is not rejecting being actively opposed to racism. Rather, he specifically addresses a form of antiracism that has become common over the last several years. Antiracism, as Yancey notes, isn't just being opposed to racism but typically also includes at least three core tenets that set it apart as a distinct ideology.
First, antiracists believe that racism is pervasive within society. This idea is connected to the idea that racism can take on various forms, not just racial hatred.
Second, antiracists believe that there's a strong moral obligation to take on the cause of antiracism. It's far more than a moral opinion but a duty to intentionally focus on being opposed to racism.
Third, antiracists believe in what Yancey calls "differential expectations for whites and nonwhites." This idea stresses an adversarial and confrontational two-tier system that places accountability and responsibility solely or primarily onto whites.
Yancey takes issue with the third point. However, most of his objections to this third point are utilitarian. Yancey wants to advance a method that works, and according to his research, methods that stress one side doing the work or one side bearing all the responsibility aren't effective. The below quoted describes the authors primary objection to the more hostile and confrontational attitude.
There is a confrontational aspect to these writings that may reflect a confrontational element within antiracism. But what does it take to convince someone to adopt a different attitude? What does it take to bring about moral suasion? If we want to truly persuade individuals, there are a number of important actions we can take. We should identify where we agree with the person, admit when the other person has made a good point, build rapport, and understand the arguments that person has for his or her beliefs. If we can accomplish these goals, we have a chance to convince them of our point of view. This is how moral suasion works and when it is undertaken in such a manner, we can build community instead of intensifying division.
Does this sound like what happens in antiracism sessions? Do such proponents seek to understand the perspectives of those who disagree with them? Do they attempt to find areas of agreement? Do antiracists admit it when those they disagree with make a good point? When antiracists dismiss the perspectives of whites, they are not operating under the best practices for moral suasion.
Another element of this third antiracism point is a posture of humility for whites. Those who have not experienced a specific sort of injustice should have a humble attitude towards those who have. Personal experience does matter, but it's also not the only factor that matters. This is why Yancey's firm position in favor of cooperation is essential.
Instead of colorblindness and antiracism, Yancy offers a new way he calls mutual accountability. He writes,
A mutual accountability model is about finding win-win solutions. Instead of focusing on getting everything we can get, we focus on what we need so we can work together instead of against each other. The difference between this model and a colorblindness or antiracism model is the focus on healthy interracial communications. In other models we are asked to accept preordained answers. A mutual accountability model assumes we cannot know the answers to our racialized problems until we have engaged in collaborative conversations with each other. When individuals are convinced they already have the right answers, they feel justified using legal, political, and cultural power to enforce those answers. Such expressions of power make racial alienation worse. But collaborative conversations emphasize moral suasion rather than power. The focus is on community building rather than winning the racial war.
Yancey encourages us, especially in the church, to diligently seek to understand one another. This could not be a more critical message. Although I do think we often have an unrealistic tendency to see today as worse than past times, I can't help but feel that more voices than ever are seeking division, demonization, and hysteria as opposed to understanding, respect, and reconciliation. Famous pastors call ideas like systemic racism "cult-like" while some activists on "the other side" intentionally disparage or minimize white voices simply because they're white.
Listening and genuinely trying to understand each side won't magically fix all the problems, but it's a good start. Unfortunately, far too much of the rhetoric on racial division is not an accurate representation of what most people are saying. Sensationalism, click-bait headlines, and fear-mongering seem more common than good-faith dialogue. Yancey is right to call for basics such as active listening, good-faith dialogue, and cooperation.
focus and hope
With all of the good in Yancey's book, his focus did make me pause. The failures of antiracism, for example, get an entire chapter while the failures of colorblindness get a few scattered, though helpful, paragraphs throughout the book. While Yancey's chapter on institutional racism could be seen as a correction of colorblindness, the book's tone and focus trends towards correcting antiracism.
There could be several good reasons for this focus. After all, antiracism has grown in popularity over the years, and Yancey could simply see it as more of a threat. He could also be considering his target audience and concluding that this emphasis is more needed. I'm not sure.
What I do know, however, is that I bring my own perspective and experiences to the table when considering the issue of focus. As someone raised in predominantly colorblind evangelical circles, I know that many on that "side" of things, as a rule, do not consider dialogue as a virtue. Sometimes dialogue is even rebuked as a sort of compromise as if those we disagree with on racial division are not even worthy of conversation. A "scorched earth" almost inquisition-like approach to racial division is common within right-wing evangelicalism, while similarly radical views on the left are primarily outside the church and certainly outside the mainstream. While many antiracists ask, "how do we address this issue" the colorblind do not want to ask questions and see no point in asking questions.
I commend Yancey for his stand in favor of honest, careful, and humble dialogue. However, while I can name dozens of popular "colorblind" evangelical teachers who, by their rhetoric or explicit admission, express no desire whatsoever for this kind of good-faith conversation, I have difficulty thinking of evangelical antiracists who wouldn't gladly welcome more collaboration and conversations. I may disagree with many of their policy positions and conclusions, but I don't foresee them disagreeing with the need for conversion. While many on the "colorblind" side openly mock the idea of having a conversation and instead see the other side as only deserving harsh rebuke. While I tend to agree with most of what Yancey is saying, and while I also have my own criticisms of antiracism, only the "colorblind" right-wing has ever attempted to silence me on this issue.
But, as I said, I have my own perspective as someone firmly in the evangelical world. My own experiences on this topic are primarily limited to dealing with other Christians. This criticism could be particular to my own perspective, but perhaps not. I’m unsure. Outside the evangelical world I certainly see more extremism on all sides.
Though some have criticized this book as overly hopeful, I appreciate the hopeful tone Yancey takes. I think it's needed and healthy. I'm afraid a lack of hope regarding racial division does great harm and can sometimes add to division. If there's no hope, after all, why even try? Why not further isolate into ethnic-centric tribalism? We must have hope, and a lack of hope informs how we respond to division. Though I'm sure this hopefulness can feel unwarranted or "wishful thinking," we would do well to remember what we know will come. We don't know how or when, but unity will come. Just as we share the Gospel without assurances that the nations will be discipled in our lifetime, we should likewise have a hopeful joy in striving for racial unity in Christ
“After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands.” – Revelation 7:9
Yancey's book, while sometimes seeming overly simplistic, is a needed reminder of the basics. Until we get these basics down and start practicing the elementary things, there's not much hope of having hard conversations about more complex policies and solutions. But I do have hope. Yancey's alternative should be the standard as we move forward with hope firmly planted in Christ.
Thank you to George Yancey for an advance review copy of Beyond Racial Division.