Beyond Racial Division

A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism

George A. Yancey

• Publisher: IVP
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781514001844
• eBook ISBN: 9781514001851
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Christianity Today Book Award—Politics and Pubilc Life

Efforts at colorblindness and antiracism have not been very effective in addressing racial tensions in the United States. Colorblindness ignores the realities of race and the history of injustice. On the other hand, antiracism centers racial concerns and in so doing often alienates people who need to be involved in the process. Sociologist George Yancey offers an alternative approach to racial relations where all parties contribute and are mutually accountable to one another for societal well-being. He provides empirical rationale for how collaborative conversations in a mutual accountability model can reduce racial division. History and societal complexity mean that different participants may have different kinds of responsibility, but all are involved in seeking the common good for all to thrive. Avoiding unilateral decisions that close off dialogue, Yancey casts a vision for moving beyond racial alienation toward a lifestyle and movement of collaborative conversation and mutuality.

We Need a New Path

WHO AM I, and why should you even listen to me? I am a black man. When you are a black man in the United States, it is difficult to escape your racial status. So it should not be surprising that soon after receiving my doctorate in sociology I started conducting research on issues of race and ethnicity. About fifteen years ago I believed I had reached the pinnacle of my career as a race scholar with the publication of two important books (Emerson & Yancey, 2010; Yancey, 2006). Well, at least I thought they were important. Not a lot of other people did. I knew the ideas in those books did not conform to traditional ways of thinking about race for either conservatives or progressives. Although the books have generated enough interest to keep them in circulation, they have had a limited audience. Since I felt I had said all I had to say on racial issues, I went on to write and talk about other matters, deciding I would never again do serious writing on racial issues.

Well, “never” does not last as long as one might think. Here I am doing serious writing on race again. Why? What brought me back? On February 23, 2020, Ahmaud Arbery was gunned down while on a run. We had seen shootings of black men before, but this one bothered me more than most. Selfishly, maybe, because I work out by cycling and could see myself in a position like that of Arbery. That is less true in other cases, such as the events involving Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, and Trayvon Martin. But Arbery’s killing alone was not enough to drag me back into the fray. It also took the murder of George Floyd on May 25. Perhaps it was being under Covid-19 lockdown. Perhaps it was having two such killings so close together that resonated with me. I cannot say for certain what it was, but it made me tired. I checked out of social media and the news for about three weeks.

When I came back to paying attention and opened myself up to others, I was astounded. All of the sudden I was being contacted by groups wanting to talk to me or have me talk to their group. There was a dramatic increase in radio interview and podcast requests. My books, which were more than a decade old, started to see a resurgence in sales. There was increased interest in my social media accounts.

What created this new interest? I believe it happened because the path I enunciated does not drag individuals toward the mistakes of either colorblindness or antiracism. It confirmed to me that there is an audience of individuals who see the failures of both colorblindness and antiracism. They demand something new. Something they believe can work.

This attention has excited me and confirmed to me that the path I described some years ago is the one we need to take. With the additional experience I have gained since my last work on racial issues, I am ready to dive into this subject again. I will argue that what I call mutual accountability is the best way to produce a better outcome in our ongoing racial conflict. Before 2020, I could make the excuse that nobody was paying attention. But given the renewed attention I described above, I can no longer make that claim. It is one thing to stay on the sidelines when there is little chance your activism will do any good. It is another matter altogether when you have an opportunity to make a difference. I want to make a difference.

The Problem Is in Me

I am going to offer a solution to the racial problems before us. But no matter how good my approach, I must also recognize that I am part of the problem. I live in a racialized society, and I cannot escape the effect of that society. I, the African American race scholar, have a problem with racism.

This reality slapped me in the face when I was in graduate school. During my last year in Austin, Texas, I lived in an interracial neighborhood in the northeastern part of the city. One day while watching the news I heard of a police shooting. The broadcast included the name of the street where the shooting took place, and I realized that it was in my own neighborhood. A man had been harassing a woman and the police drove him off. When the man returned, he produced what they thought was a gun and the police opened fire, killing the man. Was my first thought about the welfare of the man shot? Was it about the woman who may have watched the man die? Was it even about my own security living in a neighborhood where a crime like that could take place? No. My first thought was, “I hope he was not black.”

I hope he was not black! Of all the first thoughts to have, why did I focus on race? Because I knew that if this man was black, I would wonder if his race led to his being shot, I would be reminded about the precarious relationships between black men and the police, and I would fear possible new tensions rising in my city and neighborhood. Not only does the skinhead or black nationalist have a problem with racial ethnocentrism, but I do as well. My society has instilled that ethnocentrism within me, and I learned those lessons well. I contribute to the racial alienation plaguing our society and unless I take deliberate steps to do otherwise, I will always be more a part of the problem than the solution.

A major issue inhibiting us from confronting larger institutional and structural racial issues is our own racialized desires, insecurities, and fears. We all occupy a place in this racial structure and we either defend our current position or work to improve that position. What I was not thinking of, and what we tend to not think about, is what is best for everyone. How can I break out of my racialized bubble to put forth answers that reflect more than the reality that I am a black man? How can any of us truly free ourselves from the racialized glue sticking us to our own self-defenses and desires for “our people” to be free to care for all in our society? Recognizing our own weaknesses and biases is a vital first step in dealing with the racial conundrum facing us.

Our Unhealthy Cycle

As many have said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. But we do not have to be insane. We can consider why we have our current racial situation and choose a different route. Have you noticed our unhealthy cycle of racial controversy in the United States? It goes like this: We have a racial incident, such as a police shooting of an African American, and then we have a series of protests demanding justice. After a while there are counterprotests and pushback from those who consider the demands of the protesters to be unreasonable. Finally we return to some kind of normalcy and wait for the next racial incident to start the cycle all over again.

This cycle is the direct result of the fact that we have two contradictory forces fighting for ascendency in our debate on how to deal with racial alienation. After a racial incident, those promoting some version of antiracism become active. For the moment they have the upper hand in the news cycle with their protests and other forms of activism. But over time those supporting a more colorblind approach push back. They argue that antiracists have overplayed their concerns or that this incident is not a real example of racism. The argument shifts, allowing them the opportunity to push their agenda forward. With both groups going at each other, we then return to our stalemate between the forces of colorblindness and antiracism.

Generally speaking, strong adherents in either group do not alter their perspective due to the new racial incident. Instead they become more entrenched in the rightness of their cause. But soon the attention of the public is drawn to a different event or situation and the momentum to deal with our racialized society begins to evaporate. Neither those advocating colorblindness nor those supporting antiracism have been reduced in numbers or social power, so they remain ready to fight on a new day. Any political or social victories won by either side of this racialized debate are short-lived due to the reality that another powerful social group stands ready to resist those victories. The fight, and the cycle, go on.

As long as we are convinced that these are our only two options, this process will continue for the foreseeable future. One possible outcome is that eventually either colorblindness or antiracism will win out and that side will implement long-term social and political reforms according to their own desires. That is a possibility, and I am certain both groups would like to see it occur for their own cause. But it is not likely to happen soon, and in the meantime more social damage will be done in our racial wars. Furthermore, do we think the vanquished group will just go away? Or will they stick around and do all they can to ruin the reforms promoted by the victors?

We can pick a side to fight for and wait to see which group will win, or we can acknowledge that these racial wars are not good for our society and figure out how to work together. We badly need to find solutions that are not short-term but sustainable in a racialized society, since multiple groups have “skin” in the game. This is the only way for us, in any reasonable time frame, to reduce or even eliminate our sick cycle of racial event, protest, counterprotest, normalcy, and new racial event that continues to plague us.

Models for Confronting Racial Issues

When I discussed racial issues in my original book (2006) I talked about four different models by which we try to deal with racial issues. Those models were colorblindness, Anglo-conformity, multiculturalism, and white responsibility. Much of what I described in the white responsibility model can now be considered antiracism. Many of the tenets of multiculturalism have recently been co-opted by advocates of antiracism as well. But they focus less on honoring all cultures, which is theoretically the goal of multiculturalism, and rather demand adherence to the values and ideals found in antiracism. This leads not to a spirit of multiculturalism but an assertion that we need the right culture to eliminate racism.

Much of what I ascribed to Anglo-conformity is less popular today. Anglo-conformity focused on teaching people of color to move toward economic success with an emphasis on an acceptance of Western European values and methods. But just as multicultural efforts have largely been replaced with antiracism, so too have Anglo-conformity efforts been replaced with a greater emphasis on colorblindness. While it has not completely disappeared, I do not see the push for solutions based in Anglo-conformity that was prevalent a couple of decades ago. Thus it makes more sense to talk about colorblindness as the dominant ideology rather than Anglo-conformity.

In summary, when it comes to dealing with racial problems, it is clear that today we are looking at two competing dominant ideologies rather than four. These two ideologies have the social and cultural resources to be available to the larger population. But there is a better way.

Mutual Accountability

In previous works I have also spoken of mutual obligation or mutual responsibility when it comes to issues of race. Today I prefer the phrase mutual accountability. But if this is not clear, the main element of this model can be described with another two-word concept: collaborative conversations. A collaborative conversation has been defined (Brake, 2019) as “a purposeful, outcome-driven conversation aimed at building on each other’s ideas.” The key to this process is that everyone is allowed to participate, and everyone’s ideas are taken seriously. Everyone has a say in the final outcome. A willingness to participate in the conversation and to make room for the contributions of others is expected. We are all accountable to find solutions that best serve everybody, thus the term mutual accountability. For the balance of the book I will use mutual accountability and collaborative conversations interchangeably.

Mutual accountability is not an insistence that we find equal and identical roles for everyone in our society. It is about our mutual responsibility to enter into the conversation. The outcome will be worked out in that conversation. To use an analogy, if a husband is going out with his male friends too much, he and his wife have a responsibility to discuss a solution they can live with. It is not for her to dictate how much and how often he can go out with them. She may not want him to go out at all, but he has a need for their companionship. It is not up to the husband to decide either. He must take his wife’s needs into account. Rather, they both enter a collaborative conversation to find the best solution for their relationship.

Notice what has not happened. The wife has not been asked to cut down on time spent on her relationships with her female friends, because that was not the problem at hand. If the husband has not been troubled by her time with friends, then it is merely vindictive to insist that she curtail those relationships. The husband and wife have a mutual responsibility to enter into a healthy conversation, but the solution does not require that both parties play an equal role.

In the larger racial context, it is possible that the outcome of our collaborative conversations will involve minimizing the different racial dynamics of each group with the solution grounded in a colorblind mentality. Since it is important not to preordain solutions, I concede that a race-neutral solution is possible. But I seriously doubt this will happen. Given the racial ugliness in our country and the way people of color have suffered, it is unlikely they will settle for a solution that ignores the effects of historical racism and institutional bias. I think the most likely outcome is one where the roles of the races are different, although we share in the responsibility to enter into the dialogue in a respectful manner.

The path of mutual accountability is capable of leading us out of our current cycle because its focus is not purely on winning the argument. This is not to say we ignore our own concerns. Rather, we find a venue where we can air our concerns and have them heard. In return we listen to the concerns of others. In that atmosphere of collaborative communication, we work together to find solutions we can accept. We break the cycle because we learn we cannot have everything. We cannot expect to gain domination over our political or racial opponents. But we find ways of working together. When we do that, the cycle of protest and counterprotest can be replaced by a process of communication, mutual solutions, and then labor from all sides to make the solutions successful.

Why would those steeped in our previous models of colorblindness and antiracism consider communication and compromise when they are so convinced they are in the right? Some individuals will be resistant. But they need to consider that their chances of getting everything they want are slim. Their political victories will continue to be sabotaged by their opponents. What if they could get most of what they want with their political opponents helping instead of hindering them? If we bring people into discussion and find compromises, then we gain real allies instead of inspiring opposition. The mutual accountability approach is our best effort to find stable, sustainable solutions that pull us together rather than tear us apart.

Talking to Each Other

Since communication is important in this approach, it is essential to define certain terms. I do so with the goal of having the terms be accessible to everyone. The way we communicate can either shut people out of the conversation or bring them into the conversation. Research indicates that when individuals are approached in ways that feel threatening, they stop considering arguments from the source of the threat (Chapman, 2012; May, 2007; McNamee, 2011). It does no good to complain about their unwillingness to have those conversations. As human beings we have certain psychological defenses that kick into action when we hear threatening arguments. The way we talk to each other matters. It does not matter if we’re right if we cannot communicate our perspective to those who disagree.

For example, I have often heard whites talk about how they “do not see color.” I have talked to enough whites to understand the sentiment behind such assertions. The person is letting me know he or she will not treat me in a negative way because of my race. Because I understand this, I am not offended. However, I know ho...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 We Need a New Path
• 2 The Mutual Accountability Model
• 3 The Reality of Institutional Discrimination
• 4 Why Antiracism Fails
• 5 The Empirical Basis of Mutual Accountability
• 6 The Theological Basis of Mutual Accountability
• 7 Doing Mutual Accountability in Our Lives
• 8 Toward a Larger Movement of Mutual Accountability
• Acknowledgments
• Notes
• References
• Also by George Yancey
• Praise for Beyond Racial Division
• About the Author
• More Titles from InterVarsity Press
• Copyright