Laissez-Faire Racism
Lawrence D. Bobo and Ryan A. Smith
Introduction
In 1944, Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish economist and social reformer, described the American dilemma as an "ever-raging" conflict between general values of freedom, individual rights, democracy, equality, and justice (i.e., the "American Creed") and white's attitudes and behaviors toward blacks. Mydral's analysis of race relations was influential in molding "America's Second Reconstruction," the era roughly from the late 1950's to the mid-1960's when Americans appeared to act in unison to protect the basic citizenship rights of blacks.
The optimism for better race relations generated from this period has since eroded into pessimism. Gains made during the 50's and 60's have leveled off, with no indications of potential closing of white-black gaps in access to valued resources. Some argue that whites never intended full inclusion for blacks and do not now show any real inclination toward bringing it about.
Bobo and Smith argue that deep-seated racism remains as an integral part of American culture. The manifestation of this racism, however, has changed from Jim Crow racism (i.e., overt acts of discrimination and hate-based acts of aggression) to Laissez-faire racism, wherein whites (and to extent blacks themselves) blame blacks for the black-white gap in access to resources. These racial attitudes continue to justify and explain the prevailing system of racial domination, even while the core element of racist ideology in the U.S. has changed.
Key Points
- Bobo and Smith argue that "there are inevitable connections between economic and political structures, on the one hand, and patterns of individual thought and action, on the other hand." In their opinion, racial attitudes have become more egalitarian in response to adaptive needs to more fully integrate well educated and well trained blacks into the work force.
- Longitudinal research shows, for example, that Americans have become increasingly more egalitarian in their racial attitudes.
- Yet Americans have been slow to implement legislation and reluctant to support policies to fully reduce racial barriers.
- Bobo and Smith assert that relative "group position" helps explain why shifts in racial attitudes have not fully reduced barriers against blacks. They state that whites favor changing society to allow blacks greater opportunities, but still do not want to yield their relative dominance over blacks. Whites want to maintain their dominant group position relative to blacks.
- When Whites blame Blacks for their relative lack of social mobility, rather than accept responsibility for erecting barriers to mobility, then they foster opposition to affirmative action and other social policies that might alleviate race-based inequalities.
Discussion Questions
- In what ways does the concept "group position" resemble the concept of "rankism" as it was explained by Robert Fuller (i.e., Chapter 4)?
- Do statistics on socioeconomic status differences between blacks and whites indicate discrimination against blacks or the inability of blacks to compete effectively in a global economy? Explain your answer.
- Is it important for Americans to attempt to reduce white-black gaps in access to resources? Explain your answer from a structure-functional or conflict perspective.
- Which social philosophy, structure-functionalism or symbolic interactionism, seems best suited to explaining the decline in Jim Crow racism in the US? Explain your answer.
