If someone said to you, “Wow, as a White person in America today, I really feel like my identity is under fire,” how would you react? Your options range from vehement agreement to moral scorn, with lots of room in between. Would you agree with their sentiment? Would you disengage, and walk away? Would you accuse them of naivete or racism? Or, would you say, “Tell me more”?
There is definitely space to ask that question regarding some data collected by the Harvard Public Opinion Project. HPOP conducts a biannual poll of political opinions and civic attitudes of 18- to 29-year-old Americans. With topics ranging from presidential satisfaction to racial discrimination, the results paint a picture of the mostly left-leaning viewpoints of young Americans which can be tracked over time. One of these results pertains to perceptions of racial discrimination.
This year, HPOP asked the following question: “How much, if at all, do you believe that people of your racial background are under attack in America?” with options “a lot,” “a little,” “not much,” and “not at all.” The poll found that 59% of young Black Americans believe that people sharing their racial background are under “a lot” of attack, whereas 19% of young White, non-Hispanic Americans believe that people sharing their racial background are under “a lot” of attack.
Studies have been conducted to assess underpinning reasons for some of these attitudes. In 2014, Northwestern University researchers Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson conducted a study about political leanings of independents in which they told a treatment group that California had recently become a state with a majority-minority population, and told a control group nothing about demographics. They then surveyed the participants about political leanings, finding that those who were told White people were now in the minority were significantly more likely to lean Republican: the control group favored Democrats at 31% compared to Republicans at 16%, while the treatment group had 33% leaning Republican and 19% leaning Democratic — an almost complete reversal.
This study — coupled with a study suggesting that most of the population grossly overestimates the percentage of Americans who belong to a minority group — provides one potential explanation for this surprising statistic: if some White people perceive that they are a minority population — which they aren’t — they may perceive that people of their racial background are under attack. Alternatively, with the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement, it is also possible that some White people are falsely equating the empowerment of one racial group with the disenfranchisement of another. Either way, some education is in order.
But education is not enough. The best way to bridge a gap of understanding between two groups of people is civil discourse. And that begins with a desire to understand. It is easy to understand the 59% of young Black Americans who feel like those of their racial background are under “a lot” of attack. In addition to the disproportionately high number of police killings of Black people, the persistent wage gap between White and Black employees, and astronomical health disparities between White and Black patients, the number of hate crimes against Black people has increased by 40% over the past two years.
In contrast, more people may be surprised at the notion that 19% of young White Americans believe that their racial identity is under fire. To many, this perception is problematic. Since racism is typically defined as prejudice against a minority group by a majority group, the concept of “reverse racism” is faulty at best and offensive at worst. Historical patterns of racism observed in both individuals and institutions have knitted anti-Black racism into the fabric of our institutions, from the criminal legal system to our schools. Thus, the notion that, even given the privilege White people hold, some still feel like their identity is under fire, is easy to dismiss as naive or even hateful.
Counterintuitively, it is precisely this dismissal which will perpetuate — not solve — the problem.
Now, to be abundantly clear, I want to define a few terms before we proceed. By “dismissal,” I mean the refusal to engage in any conversation, regardless of agreement. This is contrasted with “rejection,” by which I mean the repudiation of the idea’s validity of the idea itself. When I say “consideration,” I mean the intellectual engagement with a certain topic; this consideration certainly does not need to conclude in agreement with the new sentiment.
This distinction is necessary because though I argue against the dismissal of any argument, I also believe that rejection is legitimate after consideration. At a time when political polarization is at its highest in two decades, the easy option is to retreat into the comfort of our viewpoints and the company of those who share them, and to avoid engaging with opposing views, especially those which we find morally objectionable. However, this dismissal only serves to contribute to polarization.
Even if one believes they hold the moral high ground on a certain topic, their subsequent refusal to engage with those they see as morally inferior has two detrimental effects. The first effect is the reduction of a person to their stance, or even a perception of their stance. If a stance leads someone to walk away from the person with the stance, the person walking away communicates flippant superiority, that the person speaking has no right to what they believe to such an extent that they are not even worthy of being heard. This dismissal makes it easier to ostracize people and reduce them to their opinions. Dismissing a person’s stance serves both to disrespect the person speaking and to increase polarization.
The second effect is a critical lack of understanding. As stated above, dismissal and rejection are not analogous, but the conflation of the two prevents clear communication, which leads to misunderstandings, misplaced judgment, and wasted potential relationships. One can consider a viewpoint for many reasons, but I want to highlight two and draw a distinction between them. One can engage in a conversation in order to challenge their stance, and one can engage in order to understand the motivations behind another’s belief. These are not mutually exclusive, but for the sake of argument, let’s treat them as such.
There may be certain topics where one is unwilling to change their viewpoint; in other words, there may be viewpoints which one wholly rejects. In that case, it may be fruitless to engage in a conversation whose goal it is to challenge that stance. That rejection does not mean, however, that the viewpoint must be immediately dismissed and is unworthy of consideration. In fact, the impulse to reject might signal that you in fact do have something to learn: why the person feels the way they do. Understanding why someone holds a certain position does not have to threaten your opinion on that position; in fact, it can strengthen both your position and your capacity to respect those on other sides of various issues.
Indeed, our country is in need of empathy. Reuters reported that 13% of Americans ended relationships with family or friends as a result of political differences in 2017 — representing one in eight Americans. Another study, done by Zaid Jilani and Jeremy Adam Smith at the University of California, Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, identifies 14 negative effects of polarization. These effects include shorter family meals, worse physical health, damaged government institutions, economic downturn, worsened ability to form consensus even around shared values, and the likelihood of violence.
Especially given these risks, the ability to look beyond a statement of position and into the interests of others is crucially and tragically lacking in today’s society. Movements toward cancel culture and deplatforming are examples of dismissal without consideration, and these movements are often justified through a rejection on moral grounds of the potential speaker’s position.
While promoting hate speech is certainly not my objective, I want to suggest that, given the importance of considering the underlying motivation of a viewpoint, we need to move away from filtering opinions based on content and toward listening to opinions with which to disagree. This approach is the only way to understand why people feel the way they do. Understanding these motivations helps us understand each other in a deeper way, bridging the widening gaps between us and allowing us to see each other as humans — perhaps even friends — with different experiences and different views.
So, next time a White person says that they feel their racial identity is under attack, consider the possibility of engaging them in dialogue. Ask them why they feel that way, and maybe you will understand them better. Consider promoting civil discourse around contentious issues, with the goal of bringing our society together.
Image by Brock DuPont licensed under the Unsplash License.
