Posted on 11/23/2016 2:43:33 PM PST by nickcarraway
Americans, like other humans, live in bubbles: The place you live, the media you consume, and the experiences you have shape what you take to be the world. To get out of hers, Arlie Hochschild, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a self-identified liberal progressive, headed to Lake Charles, Louisiana, for five years of field work, resulting in Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, a book that’s being called one of the best things you can read to understand the election.
In interviews with her subjects — a gospel singer, an oil-rig worker, “an obedient Christian wife” — Hochschild was careful to make them feel safe, allowing them to reveal to her what their views are, rather than prying it out of them. “I was acutely aware of the fragility of the ground rules I was trying to set, to promise them no judgments, so that they would be honest with me,” she tells Science of Us. They avoided the topic of race altogether, and when she did finally raise it to them, the immediate reply was, No – I’m not racist.
Her subjects’ sensitivity underscores a fact of political life that gets overlooked: If you want someone to listen to you, don’t offend them. Even if you think their views are deplorable.
“The word racist is one of the country’s most powerful triggers,” she says. It immediately puts people on the defensive, and political-science research suggests that shaming people isn’t the best way to convince them of your worldview. Her subjects assumed than anybody from the North would think of them as a racist — a bad, brutal person associated with slavery and the oppression of minorities. “They were allergic to the word,” she says. When conversations did arrive at race with her 40 in-depth subjects, she saw “every expression of every viewpoint.” One guy described himself as a “reformed bigot”: He used the N-word in the 1960s, when everyone around him was, but hadn’t used it since. While he has a Facebook page heroizing policemen, he also doesn’t tolerate racial slurs on it. His was “a mixed story,” she says, and “there are so many mixed stories if you don’t start with that word racist.”
Like Science of Us has argued before, just about the worst way to get someone to open up enough to think critically about their views is to call them something they find offensive. (Cut to: basket of deplorables.) Racist in particular holds a charged and ambiguous space. Benjamin Bergen, author of What the F: What Swearing Reveals About Our Language, Our Brains, and Ourselves, says that the word is emotionally fraught like a conventional swear word, but it’s not quite the same thing: If you were to ask a representative sample of Americans if it should be bleeped on television and radio, they’d say no — even those offended by it.
“What’s it’s most close to is a slur, but it’s not like chink or nigger or wetback,” he says. “These are terms that are problematic as sequences of sounds or letters — racist is not that.” It functions a bit like a slur in that it’s a way for one group to label another, but it’s not like the word captures a demographic group representative of everyone who has ever been called racist in American history.. “You wouldn’t say that Malcolm X and David Duke belong to a natural category of people,” he says. “And it’s not a group that’s been marginalized over the course of history or much in the present. It’s not like people are suppressed because they are racists. I think it’s most like a derogatory term, like idiot or deplorable.”
If you’re trying to talk to someone who lives in a bubble opposite yours, it might be helpful, Bergen suggests, to borrow from disability advocacy and the notion of “people first” language. Instead of saying, “She’s autistic,” say “She has autism.” Rather than “the handicapped,” “people with disabilities.” While subtle, this phrasing avoids being “definitional”: that all you are is a particular trait, you are this kind of person and always will be. (Relatedly, when experimental subjects are manipulated to think they “are a voter” rather than “someone who votes,” they have greater voter turnout.) Similarly, if you say that someone’s actions or words are racist, rather than declaring them to be a racist, then — following the logic of “people first” language — you’re not reducing their identity to their views. (Hochschild was careful to note to me that the discontent she witnessed in white Louisianans “doesn’t just reduce to racism”; they’re the losers of globalization, automation, and, as new data suggests, drug dependency.) Still, if what you’re trying to do is actually relate, getting at the structures and viewpoints underlying racism without getting the conversational bridge blown up by the emotional charge of “racist” looks like the best way forward.
It’s a version of the writer’s practice of showing rather than telling: Instead of summarily saying that someone or something is racist, demonstrate why it is so. “If you label something as racist, you are intrinsically editorializing, and people’s reactions will vary depending on whether they feel they are being targeted,” Bergen says. “Obviously, people are never wrong, so they’ll react by assigning blame or negative intent — they won’t hear the message probably.” What does work, according to the political-science research, is appealing to their values, which may be — surprise, surprise — different from your own.
Calling names is all the left has.
People who resort to that just want to end the argument, not win it.
Is separatism racism? IIRC Lincoln initially favored moving blacks to Liberia (not saying that is good, bad, or whatever).
The purpose in calling someone racist is NOT to win the argument, but to shut the opposition up.
A person uses such allegations when they run out of talkingpoints and don’t know how else to advance their position in an argument. They resort to name-calling.
I love that no one has learned that the Trump voters aren't racist, which is what you'd expect from this type of article, they are congratulating themselves for realizing that even though we are racist, if they start out by calling us that, we will never be able to learn that we are, because we're so sensitive.
Hi, I'm TinyOwl, and the people with liberalism say I have racism.
Leftists don’t always call people racists. They cry a third of the time and throw F bombs another third of the time
Frankly, I no longer give a tinker's damn, and there are millions more of the same opinion.
Sticks and stones, etc.
Yes. They label, then attack for what the label THEY applied implies. They cheat at everything. They lie as a normal way of life. They silence disagreement by any means. Their ends (being bully bosses) justifies their means (bullying).
They are heartless, vile, perverted and mean people. Liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists - whatever you want to call them - they are evil people. They hurt people and like to kill babies in the womb. They hurt and pervert society. They hurt and weaken America.
Enough with them. Shut them down.
spit
The lefties are just figuring this out now? They aren't the geniuses that they claim to be. This is a lesson that should have been learned in grade school.
Neither does sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, nativist...
Stupid. Its the same thing they did when anyone disagreed with Obama was qualified them as racist.
Whether you say your words are racists or you are a racist makes no difference to any of us. You can take the "people first" double speak and stick it. I am glad she spent some time with real people, perhaps a few more years and she might start making some sense.
They don’t want to win an argument
They want to virtue signal to everyone that THEY’RE not a racist.
They call Donald Trump a nazi (anyone who not agree with them) when George Soros who owns the democrat party is a nazi sympathizer who has stated on 60 minutes that he turned in over 100 people to the nazi’s just so he could sell their belongings.
What happens when something that is “racist” also happens to be true? The culture says that we are then to ignore/avoid the truth. The race card has been played so often because it is so effective.
So all those words in the article boil down to is, don’t insult people by calling them racists, insult them by calling what they’re doing or saying as racist.
They avoid like the plague examining why people (including themselves, though they deny it) come to have a judgment that on the average there are differences among races.
The alt right in expressing that reality concerning races gets immediately tarred as racists, even though they are simply being race realists.
98% of Americans are just like Don Rickles, who is not a racist.
Or, is pointing out the reality that blacks have a significantly lower AVERAGE IQ racist?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.