The Colorblind Screen

Television in Post-Racial America

Sarah E. Turner, Sarah Nilsen

• Editore: NYU Press
• Anno: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781479832446
• Argomento: Droit
• Categoria: Droit des médias et du divertissement

The election of President Barack Obama signaled for many therealization of a post-racial America, a nation in which racism was no longer adefining social, cultural, and political issue. While many Americans espouse a“colorblind” racial ideology and publicly endorse the broad goals ofintegration and equal treatment without regard to race, in actuality thisattitude serves to reify and legitimize racism and protects racial privilegesby denying and minimizing the effects of systematic and institutionalizedracism.

In The Colorblind Screen, the contributors examinetelevision’s role as the major discursive medium in the articulation andcontestation of racialized identities in the United States. While the dominantmode of televisual racialization has shifted to a “colorblind” ideology thatforegrounds racial differences in order to celebrate multiculturalassimilation, the volume investigates how this practice denies the significantsocial, economic, and political realities and inequalities that continue todefine race relations today. Focusing on such iconic figures as PresidentObama, LeBron James, and Oprah Winfrey, many chapters examine the ways in whichrace is read by television audiences and fans. Other essays focus on how visualconstructions of race in dramas like 24, Sleeper Cell, and The Wanted continue to conflate Arab and Muslim identities in post-9/11 television. Thevolume offers an important intervention in the study of the televisualrepresentation of race, engaging with multiple aspects of the mythologiesdeveloping around notions of a “post-racial” America and the duplicitousdiscursive rationale offered by the ideology of colorblindness.

PART I
Theories of Colorblindness

1
Shades of Colorblindness

Rethinking Racial Ideology in the United States

ASHLEY (“WOODY”) DOANE

Colorblindness—the claim that race no longer “matters” in American society—serves as the dominant framework for making claims about the role of race in the United States. For many analysts (Carr; Bonilla-Silva White Supremacy, Racism without Racists; Brown et al.; Doane “Rethinking Whiteness Studies”; Gallagher “Color-Blind Privilege”), it has become the primary framework for understanding race in the twenty-first century. At the core of colorblindness is the belief that because the civil rights movement was nearly a half century ago and white attitudes have demonstrably changed, racism is no longer embedded in the U.S. social structure and no longer serves as an obstacle to success. If racial inequality persists, then it is due to actions (or inactions) on the part of minority group members.

It is also important to recognize that—as Michael Omi and Howard Winant have argued in their seminal book Racial Formation in the United States (1986)—racial ideologies are constantly being rearticulated in response to political and social challenges. And as Eduardo Bonilla-Silva observes, the “loose character” of the elements of colorblind racial ideology “allows for accommodation of contradictions, exceptions, and new information” (Racism without Racists 10). This means that colorblindness is not static—that it can adapt to new situations. Moreover, while colorblindness can be described as a dominant or hegemonic ideology in the United States in 2012, it is certainly not monolithic. I would suggest that it is opposed (at a minimum) by a perspective that claims that racism is embedded in the social and political institutions of the United States (a perspective that—following Feagin—we might refer to as “systemic racism”) and a perspective that articulates an overt form of white supremacy or white nationalism. In short, colorblind racial ideology is continually evolving or changing in response to both changing social and political circumstances and counterclaims made by proponents of opposing ideologies.

As I have noted elsewhere (Doane “What Is Racism?,” “The Changing Politics,” “New Song”), this political struggle occurs via racial discourse—the collective text and talk of society in terms of issues of race. Public and private discourse serves as the link between macro-level racial ideologies and the micro-level understandings of groups and individuals—it is how our ideas about race both spread and evolve. Contemporary racial ideologies are communicated and contested through various media both print and electronic. In the twenty-first century, the ubiquity of the screen (television and computer) and the speed (and accessibility) of the Internet both mean that racial discourse occurs at an increasingly rapid pace. If we think of racial discourse as a political arena, one in which ideologies are rearticulated as actors respond to both the challenges of racial events and the arguments of their ideological opponents, then we need to acknowledge that it is undergoing constant evolution.

For the purposes of this book, it is also useful to consider the relationship between the media and colorblind racial ideology. In general, the media can be viewed as an institution, a set of social arrangements whose main role or function is to transmit information among and between social groups. Yet institutions reflect the divisions of wealth and power and the dominant ideologies of the larger society (Herman and Chomsky). Because the contemporary media exists in an increasingly globalized, postindustrial capitalist society, media outlets are increasingly consolidated under the control of a few large corporate actors (McChesney). This also means that media is a product and that decisions regarding programming and news coverage are driven, or at least shaped, by profit considerations (ratings, circulation, advertising, competition). Stories are followed not only for their newsworthiness but also for their presumed marketability. Individual actors—writers, directors, producers, editors, and reporters—find that their roles (and their career prospects) take place within this context.

What does this mean for colorblind racial ideology? As the dominant explanation for the role of race in the United States, colorblindness shapes the lens through which the media presents racial issues to the larger society. To the extent that colorblindness downplays systemic racism and claims that racism is an individual issue, the media will then reflect this perspective. In particular, this would mean that news coverage would focus more upon individual acts of racism (e.g., hate crimes or racially insensitive language) than subtle systemic issues (e.g., the disproportionate impact of mortgage lending on blacks and Latinos).¹

My goal in this chapter is not to attempt a reanalysis of the nature of colorblind racial ideology—although we do need to recognize that frames and storylines are constantly evolving. While Bonilla-Silva (Racism without Racists) has called attention to the fluid nature of colorblind racial ideology, I believe there is a general tendency among analysts to focus upon the structure of colorblindness rather than the ways in which it adapts and changes.² I argue the case for a more nuanced view of colorblind racial ideology, one that moves beyond a simple focus on the denial of racism and instead emphasizes the ability to hold simultaneous—and contradictory—positions—for example, that racial inequality and white privilege persist, but that racism is not widespread. This allows for such conflicting phenomena as colorblind diversity, the condemnation of racists, minority racism/white victimization, racial awareness in a “colorblind” society, and reverse exceptionalism, all supported by an overarching belief that American society is fundamentally meritocratic. I conclude with the assertion that colorblind racial ideology is best understood as a fluid set of claims about the nature of race in the United States.

Seeing Color in a Colorblind World: Colorblind Diversity

Contrary to its name, colorblind racial ideology is not about the inability to see color or the lack of awareness of race. Even the often-used line “I don’t care if they are black, white, purple, or green” demonstrates both an awareness of color/race and a centering of the black-white binary.³ The point of colorblindness is how we see color/race: in a “colorblind” world, race is most often (but not always) defined as a characteristic of individuals in a world where racism is no longer a major factor and race plays no meaningful role in the distribution of resources. In essence, race is reduced—in theory but not in practice—to another descriptor along the lines of “tall” or “left-handed.” To paraphrase Bonilla-Silva (Racism without Racists), what is left is “race without races.”

Interestingly, the view of race as an individual characteristic opens the door for colorblindness to embrace racial diversity. Over the past few decades, the idea of “diversity” has taken on iconic status in American society (Doane “The Changing Politics”; Bell and Hartmann; Sherwood). Communities, corporations, educational institutions, the military, and others have embraced the virtues of diversity and inclusion. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the media, as the “colorblind screen” (the title of this volume) displays diversity everywhere. Contemporary viewers see images of diversity (often carefully chosen) on news staffs, in advertisements, sports coverage, entertainment, and popular shows (crime, “reality” television), and even through the self-presentation of colleges and universities (on ads during football games and on university websites). This is not to imply that representation of peoples of color in the media is even remotely approaching parity, but that given the often hypervisibility of peoples of color to whites, the impact of diversity is likely to be exaggerated.

What makes diversity work from a colorblind standpoint is that it ostensibly supports its main ideological linchpin—the claim that race no longer matters. If we see that peoples of color are visible participants in most spheres of life—and the “colorblind” eye has a tendency to exaggerate diversity—then have we not made great strides toward racial equality? If we turn on the television and see multimillionaire minority athletes and entertainers, then is racism truly a barrier? And if we see minority justices, high-ranking government officials, and, since 2008, a black president, have we not truly realized Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of living in a land where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? It is through this logic that diversity and colorblindness are intertwined.

For individuals, diversity is generally very compatible with a colorblind worldview. As Joyce Bell and Douglas Hartmann found, many people saw diversity as making life “more interesting” or “more exciting” (899). It then becomes possible to “consume” diversity through a kind of cultural tourism—going out for “ethnic” food, attending a multicultural festival—which in turn further solidifies the feeling of living in a post-racial society. For example, as Jason Rodriquez demonstrated, colorblind ideology enabled white youths to engage with and even appropriate hip-hop. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (Racism without Racists) discovered that white respondents often emphasized the nature of diversity in their lives—having friends of color, living in a diverse neighborhood—even if the degree of diversity or friendship was greatly exaggerated. In the decades since the civil rights movement, it is increasingly socially desirable for individuals to embrace diversity to substantiate their nonracist or post-racial standpoint. Beyond the psychological benefits of feeling virtuous (most of us want to live in a society where race does not matter), “doing” diversity also provides individuals with a credential to use in racially challenging situations.

Diversity, however, has its limits. What is often implicit (or explicit) is the assumption that diversity involves a degree of assimilation to white middle-class/upper-middle-class norms (Bell and Hartmann). It is as if colorblindness has finally expanded the “melting pot” beyond its Eurocentric focus (Zangwill) to include blacks, Latinos, and Asians. To the extent that diversity rests upon assimilation, it is truly symbolic. There are also quantitative limits: token or symbolic inclusion is one thing, but the white majority has shown itself to become increasingly uncomfortable with being in the numerical minority in social settings, schools, neighborhoods, and the United States as a whole (Gallagher “White Racial Formation,” “Miscounting Race”; Farley and Frey; Alba, Rumbaut, and Marotz). Diversity is fine in a colorblind world, as long as things do not become too diverse.

What is most important about “colorblind diversity”—beyond the way in which it reinforces the claim that we have moved beyond race—is the absence of any meaningful challenge to the racial status quo. Diverse casts and commercials, successful athletes and entertainers can all coexist along with racial disparities in income, wealth, poverty, education, and incarceration. The inclusion and upward mobility of “diverse” individuals do not necessarily challenge the logic and the structure of an unequal racial order. Even the election of Barack Obama to the presidency—often cast as the symbolic pinnacle of American society—does not change the larger picture (Bonilla-Silva “The 2008 Elections”). As Gary Younge observed when discussing the brief elevation of African American Herman Cain to “frontrunner” status in the 2011–12 Republican primary campaign, “So long as the system remains intact, the identity of those administering it holds only symbolic relevance” (10).

Racism in a Colorblind World

Given that one of the cornerstones of colorblind ideology is the rejection of race as a meaningful force in society, it would be reasonable to conclude that racism would be on the periphery of the colorblind landscape—something to be downplayed or denied. In the post–civil rights era, ideologies of racial superiority and overt displays of racism are generally universally condemned. Indeed, charges of racism and the label of “racist” carry a social stigma that is so extreme that individuals will go to great lengths to avoid them. Speakers use rhetorical shields (e.g., I am not a racist, but …), code words, and other tactics (including embracing diversity) in an attempt to inoculate themselves against possible accusations of racism (Bonilla-Silva Racism without Racists; Bonilla-Silva and Forman). When claims of racism are made, a strong defensive reaction is evoked, and the focus of discussion shifts from the issue at hand to the charge itself (Doane “Contested Terrain,” “What Is Racism?”). What follows is a series of claims and counterclaims, where persons leveling accusations of racism can be problematized as engaging in “name-calling,” being “oversensitive,” or “playing the race card” (Essed; Doane “Contested Terrain”).

Nevertheless, colorblindness and claims of racism can coexist quite comfortably. In the colorblind world, racism is defined not as a group-based system of oppression that is embedded in social institutions but instead as individual prejudice or discrimination. This individualization of racism means that it is generally viewed as the isolated acts of “ignorant” individuals or extremist “hate groups” on the fringes of society. Even seemingly institutional acts—for example, racial profiling by police—can be reduced to the actions of racist individuals. The near-universal condemnation of these actions can then be taken as evidence of the fact that the United States has truly moved beyond race. If action is needed, it is more education to address racial “ignorance.”

So what happens when a potential case of racism emerges? In the “colorblind” society, this involves individual actions—most often racially charged or insensitive statements. Here, a few high-profile national cases can prove instructive:

• In November 2006, actor and comedian Michael Richards, best known for his role as Cosmo Kramer in the popular television sitcom Seinfeld, responded to hecklers during his stand-up routine in a Hollywood comedy club with a series of racial epithets and a reference to lynching before walking off the stage. As video recordings of the incident spread across the country, Richards responded with apologies on the Late Show with David Letterman, on civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson’s radio show, and in a telephone call to activist Rev. Al Sharpton (Farhi; CBS News “Jesse Jackson”; CNN “Sharpton”). Richards explained the tirade as the result of flying into a “rage” and asserted that he was “not a racist” (MSNBC); however, he subsequently announced his retirement from comedy and has generally remained out of the public eye.

• In early April 2007, radio personality Don Imus sparked a firestorm after making racially derogatory remarks about players from the NCAA tournament runner-up Rutgers University women’s basketball team. After a week of debate, which included an apology by Imus and calls for his firing by Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton, CBS first suspended Imus for two weeks and then fired him (CBS News “CBS Fires D...