Racial Inequality, Racism, and Racial Change (3/21) Complete Policy: ArmyNavy and what can be done? What forces and policies influence race relations in what ways?

Is there race inequality of opportunity (review) Is the playing field level. Some people believe it is more than level. The text (e.g. p. 440 “Top dog or Underdog”) suggests this is mistaken. Feagin argues that discriminatory treatment and stereotyping is pervasive in the US today, As measured by thousands of matched pair applications for housing, employment, etc.

#4 The Myth that nothing can be done There are not only huge shifts in attitudes, But also large differences and relatively rapid changes in different institutions. The army went from largely vertically segregated to the most integrated large institution in the US in decades. The process was similar to that pictured in Remember the Titans

The problem in the army and other armed forces: The problem was that vertical segregation was divisive, dysfunctional and unjust. Incoming candidates differed in test scores, so that if those scores to determined placement vertical segregation was assured. Are the test score differences innate or due to differences in schools, etc.? The army argued that there was evidence of the latter, and if so it is unjust as well as inefficient to accommodate to it.

Nature of army programs A set of four main compensatory programs. None insures one a position, only a chance. They are not aimed to replace the educational system, but to remedy the cumulative racial inequality.

The army and the navy, again. Feagin does not believe that the army is any more “utopian” than the navy. Nor were the average sentiments of either most people or most officers different. The main difference was a commitment by the leadership to a sufficient set of policies directed at both inequality and prejudice.

Are race relations and race inequality stable, unstable or hyperstable? Call a structure “stable” if it changes a little if a small force is placed on it, and it changes a lot of a large force is applied. Structures without feedbacks are often stable. Call a structure “unstable” if it changes a lot even when only a small force is applied. Positive feedback structures are often unstable Call a structure “hyper-stable” if, even after it has been changed, it tends to change back. Negative feedback structures are often hyper- stable.

The three marbles, again unstable stable Hyper-stable Which dynamic describes racism and racial inequality? Why?

Myrdal believed that race relations were unstable. They have lots of positive feedbacks. A decrease in prejudice should create an avalanche of further changes unraveling the racist structure. Just as an increase in racial inequality should create an avalanche of further changes increasing racism. (Note that both happened in the 1970’s) Moreover it is part of a larger system. Changes in the economy were undermining Jim Crow. Changes in the whole society were making Southern regionalism less viable. Changes in the world were making US failure to live up to its ideals less viable. The structure of positive feedbacks that brought it about, would cause the whole system to unravel.

Implications of his analysis of racial inequality as positive feedbacks The structure looks inert because and only because it is so pervasive. But policy interventions can be very powerful because change is amplified. However they must be broad spectrum (I.e. health, education, political power, income, wealth, social participation, etc.

Feagin’s view: We are at a fork in the road: 2 Contradictory dynamics responding to the coming minority majority in different ways: 1. Increasing separatism and coercion Gated communities The “Brazilian solution.” 2. A broad coalition to build inclusive citizenship and “true democracy” “Without justice, there cannot be peace”

The relation between individual attitudes and social dynamics Individual actions society, but in many different ways. Society individual attitudes and behaviors,, but in many different ways. Pettigrew** calls the assumption that a racist society is one that contains a lot of prejudiced individuals a failure to “keep our levels straight” or to “think in systems terms”**

Housing segregation and tipping points A striking and well-understood example involves housing segregation. Suppose that when some black families move into a neighborhood, all the white families move out. Does that mean that all the white families are motivated by prejudice? Even ignoring the institutionalized policies of banks, real estate agents and developers, schools, or politicians, imagine a distribution of attitudes as follows:

White willingness to live in neighborhoods of varying mix Suppose the following mix of attitudes: 19% favor an integrated neighborhood and will remain, so long as they are not the only whites in the neighborhood. 20% favor an integrated neighborhood and will remain, so long as it remains 50% or more white. 20% favor an integrated neighborhood and will remain, so long as no more than 1/3 of the residents are nonwhite. 20% favor an integrated neighborhood and will remain, so long as it does not become more nonwhite than the country as a whole (i.e. so long as it is less than 20% non-white) 20% favor an integrated neighborhood and will remain, so long as they do not observe other families moving out. 1% oppose a integrated neighborhoods and will move out if any non-whites move in. What is the dynamic that results?

White flight If the institutional rule is that each family makes an independent decision, and if there are no social policies that produce counter- pressures, then: 1. the move of the one percent that oppose integration in principle will cause 2. the next 20% of white families to move out, 3. which will cause the next 20% of white families to move out, 4. and so on, leading to an all black neighborhood. Another way of looking at it is as a self- reinforcing stampede of white flight.

Does the outcome reflect wishes? In one sense, by definition the outcome reflects wishes (as well as institutional arrangements.) But by assumption, 99% of the population prefers an integrated neighborhood. And the unwillingness of, for example, the last 20% to live in an almost all-black neighborhood may have nothing to do with prejudice. The outcome dynamic is the same as that which would result if all white families wanted to avoid contact with any black families. But what would have to be changed to change the dynamic is very different.

Within a decade, Jim Crow had been dismantled. Why did so “little” change in attitudes inequality and social relations result? On the one hand, the dismantling of Jim Crow is not “little.” Some people even argue that the playing field is level today (a position that Feagin and the text both contest). On the other hand, many structures of inequality and segregation have remained, and have even grown over the past 20 years.

Theory #1: Deeply rooted sentiments Some people suggest that attitudes about race are socialized early and resistant to change. But many attitudes appeared to change quite rapidly The army Bennington “Remember the Titans”

Theory #2: The new racism Some people suggest that public acceptability merely made racism take the form of cultural stereotypes rather than genetic theories: “symbolic racism” using code terms of “crime in the streets,” “welfare,” or “political correctness” “sense of group position:” that whites merely shifted to whatever policies were most likely to maintain their advantages. “laissez faire racism:” that the positions most likely to maintain white advantage were individualism and limitation of government policy

Theory #3: countervailing forces An unstable system can amplify either an increase or decrease of either racial inequality or racial prejudice. Civil rights instituted a beneficent cycle Deindustrialization, globalization, and government cutbacks instituted a vicious cycle. Which increased inequality in the black community and cancelled each other out.

Theory #4: Backlash The erosion of privileges (or perceived, relative privilege)of some whites produced counter-movements and counter-policies, and the majority of whites were not willing to take sides.

My own personal view I (Peter Knapp) have argued that there are evidently countervailing pressures Both forces are demonstrable, And inequality in the black community has increased. See the Symposium in Contemporary Sociology (26:314-7; 1997) but that sociology often has difficulty estimating how large are the effects of such countervailing feedbacks, and that is one of the reasons for developing more systemic theories.

The continued decline of prejudiced attitudes in the US: RAC PRES: % say they would vote for a candidate of the other race, if their party nominated him. Intermar: % oppose laws against the marriage of blacks and whites.

The lack of trend on policy B LACK $: % believe that the government is doing too little to improve the life chances of blacks. HELP BLACK: % strongly agree that the government should help blacks overcome the effects of past discrimination.

The effect of Jim Crow racism (or race prejudice) on “HELP BLACK” INTERMAR.? by GOV.BLACK GOVT.HELPAGR.W/BOTHNO SPECIALMissingTOTAL YES %24.5%63.2% 100.0% NO %31.2%48.0% 100.0% Missing TOTAL %29.8%51.2% A small fraction of the population opposes intermarriage, and they are only 8% less likely to support gov’t aid to blacks.

Another measure of Jim Crow racism (or race prejudice) Re “HELP BLACK” RACE DIF2 by GOV.BLACK GOVT.HELPAGR.W/BOTHNO SPECIALMissingTOTAL YES %26.3%59.1% 100.0% NO %32.1%49.0% 100.0% Missing TOTAL Only a small fraction of the population believes that blacks have less inborn ability to learn, and they are only 4% less likely to believe the government should do more to help.

The effect of new racism (or belief in less motivation) on “HELP BLACK” RACE DIF4 by GOV.BLACK GOVT.HELPAGR.W/BOTHNO SPECIALMissingTOTAL YES %26.7%61.9% 100.0% NO %35.8%37.4% 100.0% Missing TOTAL A substantial fraction of the population says that blacks have less motivation and will power, and they are substantially less likely (12% vs. 27%) to support government help.

The effect of belief in discrimination) on “HELP BLACK” RACE DIF1 by GOV.BLACK GOVT.HELPAGR.W/BOTHNO SPECIALMissingTOTAL YES %36.8%31.1% 100.0% NO %26.3%65.4% 100.0% Missing TOTAL %30.7%51.1% A substantial minority of the population says that blacks have less income, etc. because of discrimination, and they are substantially more likely (32% vs. 8%) to support government help.