Partners or Rivals?

Power and Latino, Black, and White Relations in the Twenty-First Century

Betina Cutaia Wilkinson

• Publisher: University of Virginia Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780813937748
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political History & Theory
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The emerging demographic and political presence of Latinos in the United States has moved the discussion of race relations beyond the terms of black and white. Using a variety of theoretical approaches, Betina Cutaia Wilkinson assesses Latinos', blacks', and whites' perceptions of commonality and opposition in order to reach a more nuanced understanding of the factors affecting political competition versus cooperation among these groups. In the most comprehensive analysis of Latino, black, and white relations to date, Wilkinson explores the extent to which these groups regard each other as partners or rivals and uncovers the motivations that contribute to those views.

Relying on national survey and focus group data, the author examines how social interaction; feelings of identification with members of their own group and others; and individuals' sense of power as established by their racial, economic, and political surroundings impact interracial attitudes. Her findings, like the complex racial dynamics she studies, are not easily reducible to simple formulae, yet they have strong implications for the formation of interracial coalitions. For example, even if social contact generally decreases racial and ethnic hostility, the disadvantaged status of Latinos and blacks tends to impede cooperation and ramp up rivalry, leaving members of both groups more inclined to form coalitions with whites than with each other. Yet contextual factors in particular jurisdictions, such as the availability of quality education and higher wages overall, can mitigate antagonism and increase the likelihood of cooperation.

Ultimately, Partners or Rivals? provides a timely account of contemporary race relations and the prospects for interracial and interethnic cooperation, pinpointing the sometimes surprising factors that have a realistic chance of improving those prospects.

1

A Triangular Theory of Contact, Context, and Identification

A recent Pew Research Center study finds that Millennials (individuals who are part of a generation born after 1977) are more supportive of interracial dating than the generations who came before them (Taylor 2010). Further, the number of interracial marriages has more than doubled since 1980, from 6.7 percent to approximately 15 percent in 2010 (Wang 2012). These findings provide some hope for improved inter-race relations in the future. Nonetheless, some individuals’ responses to a recent Cheerios cereal commercial of a biracial family reveals that multiracial relations may not be improving as fast as some may think. The commercial features a biracial daughter asking her white mom about Cheerios’s health benefits, and once she is told that Cheerios is good for the heart, she dumps a batch of Cheerios on her black father’s chest while he is resting on the couch (Stump 2013). While some have applauded Cheerios for its efforts to illustrate that it is inclusive and up to date on the demographic changes in this country, others’ responses were quite negative and toxic. Some found the commercial “disgusting,” even stating that it makes them “want to vomit.” A few negative comments referenced racial genocide and Nazis. Other commentators even mentioned that they were shocked to see that a black man stayed with his family (Goyette 2013).

Although these are individuals’ responses to a commercial, the previous example reveals that racial discrimination persists and that disparities in attitudes toward race exist across the country. In this project, I attempt to examine black, Latino, and white attitudes toward each other with my Triangular Theory of Contact, Context, and Identification (TTCCI). The theory is “triangular” in that it seeks to explain not one but three groups’ racial attitudes. The crux of my argument is that power disparities exist among black, white, and Latino groups, triggering an “us versus them” mindset among all groups, yet this outlook is moderated by their social networks; level of clout as determined by their racial, political, and economic environments; and their attitudes toward others. In this chapter, I provide an in-depth explanation of my TTCCI as well as the predictions that emerge from it for whites, blacks, and Latinos. The chapter begins with a discussion of how this study compares and contrasts from Claire Jean Kim’s (2000) discussion of racial order and power. Next, I provide a thorough analysis of differences that exist within groups of whites, African Americans, and Latinos, highlighting how racial, economic, and institutional contexts shape their levels of power. Finally, I explore key factors that influence perceptions of closeness, commonality, and competition, and provide predictions for their effects on these racial attitudes individually for Latinos, blacks, and whites.

Racial Power and Order

In her book titled Bitter Fruit, Kim (2000) argues that a triangulated racial order is the result of white dominance, what she coins racial power, leading to conflict between African Americans and Koreans. She states that “racial power operates not only by reproducing racial categories and meanings per se but by reproducing them in the form of a distinct racial order” (10). That is, racial power generates conflict among minority groups by producing a racial order that contrasts one group with another, making conflict between the two groups with limited social, political, and economic influence, such as Koreans and blacks, highly probable. Kim presents a triangulated racial order with an axis of superiority/inferiority where whites are superior to blacks, the extreme underclass, and Asians are triangulated between blacks and whites. Asian Americans are more favorable and powerful than blacks by being self-sufficient and motivated, less dominant than whites since they are often ostracized, and more distinct than both racial groups due to their immigrant ties.

The author of Bitter Fruit provides a compelling and important argument illustrating race relations and racial conflict in the United States today. It is undeniable that each group’s position is considerably defined relative to other groups. Whites outpace other racial and ethnic groups in terms of economic, political, and social clout, and blacks have been and continue to be one of the least influential groups. African Americans are segregated in politically powerless settings with scant resources and opportunity for upward mobility. Individuals constantly compare themselves to whites, and many seek the same amount of power and opportunities that whites have. For some, this desire can result in pursuing relationships and political alliances with whites, obtaining employment positions that are predominantly occupied by whites, and desiring to have a lighter skin tone, regrettably even going so far as to bleach one’s skin. Many minority groups, particularly Latinos and blacks, perceive that the amount of power and opportunity in the United States is limited. Whites have the most power, and others have to fight for what remains (Gay 2006). Therefore, it is inevitable that minority groups constantly draw parallels between themselves and others in order to get a sense of where they stand relative to other groups. Kim is also accurate in asserting that Koreans (and I would say Latinos and many other immigrant groups) are perceived as outsider groups and generally superior to blacks by our society, particularly by the news media and our political and social institutions today. Additionally, African Americans differ from other racial groups based on the existing parameters enforced due to continuing experiences with discrimination and oppression.

Although I concur with Kim on several assertions regarding racial power and racial order, the general race dynamics and relations that exist in the United States today are not as simple as she describes. While racial power is not congruent across the United States, and racial order does account for racial conflict between groups, I argue that variances in social, contextual, and attitudinal factors considerably structure how whites, blacks, and Latinos perceive themselves and others as mentioned in the introduction of this book.

Variances among Whites, Blacks, and Latinos

Racial, economic, and institutional contexts generate differences in power among racial groups. Whites have significant dominion in the United States, yet, like many other groups, vast differences exist within the white population. For instance, whites in the South have considerably higher levels of poverty and lower median incomes, and are less likely to have health insurance than whites in other regions. Besides differences in region and socioeconomic influence, whites differ in political clout. More whites today than ever before are represented by minority legislators and live in majority-minority districts. While this environment may simply influence whites to believe that their political influence is diminishing, whites’ political clout may indeed decrease in this context. Moreover, the Great Recession has greatly depressed the socioeconomic status, employment opportunities, and general prospects for upward mobility for numerous white households across the country in the past few years (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2011).

There are also several discrepancies in power across the African American population, and context is a critical determinant of these variances. While racial segregation persists and incarceration rates continue to be high, the poverty rate among African Americans is declining, and a substantial number of blacks throughout the country have joined the middle class in the last few decades (Dawson 1994; Tate 2010). The political opportunities for African Americans have also increased (e.g., the growing number of black legislators in the House of Representatives becoming almost proportional to the U.S. black population, and the election and reelection of the first African American president), thus expanding blacks’ political influence and power (Tate 2010). Then again, a considerable number of blacks, like other minority groups in the United States, have less than a high school level of education, are unemployed, and are not registered to vote in U.S. elections. Blacks in numerous southern cities have been economically disadvantaged in relationship to an emergent Latino population in their places of work and neighborhoods, resulting in a decline in employment opportunities and a rise in racial tensions (McClain et al. 2007; McClain et al. 2009).

While Latinos are the largest minority group and are quickly gaining more attention and clout than blacks in numerous settings, not all Latinos have the same amount of influence and opportunities. Context significantly explains these variances. Latinos in some states such as New Mexico, California, and Florida are attaining more political clout due to a growth in the number of Latino legislators in the last few decades (Casellas 2011). Yet, in nontraditional Latino areas such as the Midwest and South, where employment opportunities for Latinos have surged, Latinos’ emerging presence has resulted in greater conflict and discrimination from whites and African Americans (Marrow 2011). Furthermore, recent restrictive immigration legislation passed in Alabama and Arizona has spurred substantial fear and anxiety among Latino residents resulting in vast seclusion and distrust of local law enforcement (Gomez 2012; Planas 2012). Latinos who reside in predominantly Latino counties such as Los Angeles and Miami-Dade have attained far greater social and political power than those who reside in less “Latinofriendly” areas such as rural regions in the Midwest and South (see Marrow 2011).

Triangular Theory of Contact, Context, and Identification

In this book, I recognize the disparate influences of blacks, whites, and Latinos, and contend that various factors shape the experiences and clout of these individuals. Racial, economic, and institutional contexts temper individuals’ levels of power, subsequently influencing interracial attitudes and race relations (Segura and Bowler 2005; Telles et al. 2011). Furthermore, social context in the form of formal and informal social networks (Segura and Bowler 2005) and feelings of identification with one’s own group or others shape the attitudes and behavior of these groups. In the next few paragraphs, I provide a thorough explanation of these determinants.

The Role of Social Contact

Social contact can be defined in terms of the social networks that individuals have such as their friends, neighbors, coworkers, and those whom surround them in social, civic, and political organizations. The social contact hypothesis has been tested extensively to gauge the effect that social networks have on racial attitudes. It asserts that direct contact with a group increases the likelihood that individuals perceive the group in a positive way and decreases the hostility that exists between members of the two groups (Ellison and Powers 1994; Welch and Sigelman 2000; Rocha and Espino 2008). While Gregory W. Allport (1954) stated that the necessary conditions for the positive effects of contact to occur are direct equal-status contact, cooperation, and opportunities for socializing, several studies (Sigelman and Welch 1993; Pettigrew 1998; Welch et al. 2001; Oliver and Wong 2003) suggest that all of these conditions do not need to be met in order for contact to counteract negative attitudes. Lee Sigelman and Susan Welch (1993) contend that the primary psychological mechanism that mediates the relationship between interracial contact and positive racial attitudes is availability of information about another racial group. They state that “whites’ perceptions and expressions of racial hostility should be materially affected by personal contact with blacks, because such contact is a key source of positive information about blacks; in the absence of this source, whites must fall back on other information sources . . . which are more likely to be negative” (783). Sigelman and Welch also argue that availability of information is the mechanism that facilitates the effect of social contact, particularly friendship, on blacks’ hostility toward whites. They claim that “interracial friendship may deter racial stereotyping by providing blacks with counterexamples to the stereotype of whites as prejudiced and hostile” (783). J. Eric Oliver and Janelle Wong (2003) declare that even casual exposure to out-groups can decrease the in-group’s racial resentment and competition.

The social contact hypothesis has been tested extensively in the literature on racial attitudes to increase our understanding of complex race relations among blacks, whites, and Latinos. In particular, it has been significantly analyzed with perceptions of commonality and competition. With regard to Latino attitudes toward whites and blacks, there is some support for the social contact hypothesis. Tatishe M. Nteta and Kevin Wallsten (2007) and Michael Jones-Correa (2011) find that contact with blacks/whites heightens Latinos’ sense of commonality with blacks/whites, respectively. The social contact hypothesis also explains other racial group’s perceptions of commonality and competition. Oliver and Wong (2003) suggest that interethnic closeness in neighborhood contexts decreases intergroup resentment and competition. Still, support for the social contact hypothesis has not remained consistent. Jones-Correa (2011) and Jason L. Morin and colleagues (2011) find that greater social interaction with blacks in the workplace heightens Latinos’ sense of competition with blacks. Morin and his coauthors explain this finding by stating that it is only natural for individuals to regard those with whom they work as competitors (109). Hence, social interaction can have a positive effect on white, black, and Latino racial attitudes, but this does not happen under all circumstances.

In this project, I argue that prevailing research provides too narrow an approach to testing the social contact hypothesis. To obtain a contemporary, comprehensive understanding of its relevance today, we must test it on multiple groups and the broader contexts in which contact occurs. One way that I address gaps in the racial attitudes literature is by testing the social contact hypothesis with Latino, African American, and white perceptions of closeness, commonality, and competition, thereby improving our knowledge of the precursors of coalition formation.¹ With the growing minority population in urban areas and the rising migration of Latinos to nontraditional immigrant areas including the South and rural locations, more individuals throughout the United States have opportunities to be in contact with minorities. Hence, this study takes into account these increasing opportunities and provides a more in-depth understanding of racial dynamics and attitudes among several racial and ethnic groups that only recently have emerged. The findings of this project also have strong implications for explaining future race relations. A second contribution of this study is that it tests the social contact hypothesis with various forms of social contact: friends, neighbors, coworkers, and participants in social or civic groups. Social networks develop not only in neighborhoods or through friendships, and I take this into account. Third, this study explores the interactive effect of social contact by examining how social contact with one group influences attitudes toward another. Analyzing the effects of social contact on one group’s views toward another does not give us a sense of the relations and, consequently, cannot give us a real idea of the viable options for the formation of alliances. Now more than ever, race relations are complex, and our interactions with one racial/ethnic group can significantly affect our perceptions of others.

I hypothesize that social contact structures white, black, and Latino racial attitudes in the following ways. First, the social contact hypothesis explains white, black, and Latino perceptions of closeness, commonality, and competition with others: the more social contact one has with members of a distinct racial or ethnic group, the more positive his or her views are toward them. Second, I contend that the relationship between social contact and racial attitudes is mediated by an individual’s sociopolitical clout, and social contact with one group has divisive effects on their views toward another (see Wilkinson 2009). Given the significant disparities in sociopolitical struggles and clout between whites and minorities, blacks and Latinos are influenced to feel that they have to either side with whites (the majority) or with other minorities. Social interaction with a certain racial/ethnic group structures this feeling. For instance, while blacks’ and Latinos’ greater social contact with other minorities decreases their perceptions of closeness yet heightens their sense of rivalry with whites, social interaction with whites depresses blacks’ and Latinos’ identification and competition with other minorities. Since whites’ sociopolitical position is more established and generally higher than those of minorities, increased social interaction with other whites depresses whites’ predisposition to both identify with minorities and sense competition with them.

The Role of Racial Context

Context and contact theories are intertwined and have similar elements, yet the processes associated with them are not the same. The social contact hypothesis relates to the direct interaction and physical proximity with a particular racial group or members of that group. On the other hand, context involves more diverse forms of connection with a group or immigrant culture. It can include (1) the ethnic composition of one’s community or even individuals’ perceptions of who lives in his or her county; (2) the headlines of local news stories revealing the political culture of a particular city or town; or (3) political climate and the various economic and political resources and opportunities that county residents have to move up the socioeconomic ladder swiftly. In this project, I explore racial, economic, and institutional contexts.

With regard to racial context, a key theory in the contextual effects literature is the racial threat hypothesis (also known as the power threat hypothesis), which suggests that members of the majority may perceive a threat by the aggregation of minority members in their home contexts. As the size of the minority population increases, the perception of socioeconomic threat by members of the majority also increases, resulting in greater negative perceptions of the minority population (Rocha and Espino 2008, 1). The racial threat hypothesis can be seen as a counter to the social contact hypothesis insofar as the racial threat hypothesis suggests that contact has a negative effect on racial attitudes. Yet, it is critical to recognize that unlike the social contact hypothesis, the racial threat hypothesis does not explicitly discuss the effects of racial contact. This theory was designed to provide an explanation as to how whites respond when the black population expands and they become threatened and concerned about losing political, economic, and social power. Thus the causal mechanisms for these two theories are distinct. For the social contact hypothesis, the causal instrument is contact between members of the in-group and those of the out-group. For the racial threat hypothesis, the causal mechanism is the perceptions of in-group members that they are losing majority status—and therefore social, economic, and political power—to the out-group.

In the racial attitudes literature that assesses perceptions of commonality and competition, support for the racial threat hypothesis is mixed. John Mollenkopf (1997) examines the determinants of the formation of biracial coalitions in the city of New York and concludes that a growing Dominican population results in competition and severe tensions between Puerto Ricans ...