- Loury, as evidenced by the quote below, argues that racial stigma is more pernicious, in the final instance, than is racial discrimination? What does he mean by this? And, do you agree/disagree? Why?
“Indeed, I will argue that "racial stigma" should
now be given pride of place over "racial discrimination" as the
concept which best reflects the causes of African-American disadvantage.
Chapter 4 is devoted to a discussion…”
- Loury argues that race is: "… all about embodied social signification. As such, much depends on the processes through which powerful meanings come to be associated with particular bodily marks.” Is this an oversimplification of a more nuanced definition; or, in your opinion (explain your rationale) does his definition accurately capture the essence of the notion of “race”?
- Does Loury’s argument that, "… [a] self-confirming stereotype" is a statistical generalization about some class of persons regarding what is taken with reason to be true about them as a class, but cannot be readily determined as true or false for a given member of the class.”, function to further disempower traditionally marginalized groups? More specifically, by positioning certain pejorative stereotypes as “self-confirming”, does Loury (perhaps inadvertently) strip traditionally marginalized groups of their agency? Explain.
Glenn C. Loury. The Anatomy of Racial Inequality (Kindle
Locations 172-174). Kindle Edition.
In response to question one, what Loury means is that this sort of self-hatred or internalized oppression is more harmful than the discrimination and racism that can occur in the outside world, a statement I absolutely agree with.
ReplyDeleteRacial stigma is far, far more "pernicious" because it occurs from within.
In my opinion, existing in the real world and interacting with society means accepting the fact that we cannot control how others perceive us. We can certainly try, of course - by presenting ourselves in the right way, and what not - but ultimately, that much is really out of our hands.
But when the oppressor, when the person who holds us back from our true potential and from achieving everything that we want in life exists inside of us, that is infinitely more detrimental, because we DO have control over ourselves [or, well, we'd like to think]. The harm of internalized oppression or stigma is something I feel is true for all races, but particularly so in the example that Loury discusses...Jeremiah even demonstrated as much when he talked about how he figured at a young age math and science weren't really for him.
Glenn’s argument where he conveys that racial stigma is more pernicious than racial discrimination is very convincing. Glenn states “...it can be ‘rational’ for an observer to use racial information to assess a subject's functionally relevant but nonracial traits, assuming that those traits are not directly observable.” Although Glenn supports the quoted statement by bringing an example of the disadvantages of African Americans in the American society, I am certain that it can be applied to different minorities that suffer similar racial stereotypes and stigmas. For example, Americans of Middle Eastern decent that are Muslim and follow their traditions without hiding it from public might suffer similar disadvantage in different situations just because of the stereotypical notion that connects them with Muslim extremist Organizations. Thus, racial stereotype will result to racial stigma and that can be a serious disadvantage for certain minorities. Consider an innocent Muslim man who is arrested merely on a stigma that associates his religion with terrorist organizations and is jailed for a long time. Of course, this is an isolated incident, but it serves the point to convey that racial stigma can be disastrous.
ReplyDeleteGlenn’s definition of race accurately captures the notion of race in the contest of his book. In my opinion, race is a far more complex and broad construct, and it is really difficult to sum up everything in a single definition. Great thinkers have pondered the notion of race for centuries and every individual has his/her own subjective notion of it. I agree with Glenn’s definition of race as far as his argument goes.
I will touch on questions one and three in my response. While I agree with Nam when he says that “when the oppressor…exists inside of us, that is infinitely more detrimental”, I think this ties in better with question three and the idea of a “self-confirming stereotype” than with question one and racial stigma.
ReplyDeleteBy comparing “racial stigma” with “racial discrimination”, Loury is posing perception against treatment, as in how black people are perceived versus how black people are treated. In this way, I agree that perception, or racial stigma” is perhaps the more insidious factor because it affects not only the way others see you (stereotypes), but also the way you see yourself, such as in the self-confirming stereotype. Moreover, when stereotypes become so accepted that even social conventions begin to uphold them, when these stereotypes lead to a systematic victimization of a certain group of people, racial stigma or perception of black people than becomes a far bigger problem than the act of injustice (racial discrimination) itself. It becomes a problem of ideology (which is perhaps what Loury meant when he said that he is “after bigger fish”.)
The self-confirming stereotype is perhaps one of the biggest legacies of racial stigma, which has left behind prejudicial ideologies that are still at work today. This is best explained in Loury’s reference to Gunnar Mvrdal notion of the power of “vicious circles”: “…cumulative causation-self sustaining processes in which the failure of blacks to make progress justified for whites the very prejudicial attitudes that, when reflected in social and political action, served to ensure that blacks would not advance…” These vicious cycles where stereotypes are bought into by the victims themselves, causing their own self-fulfillment, do serve to disempower traditionally marginalized groups to some extent. They strip African Americans of their agency, painting them as helpless victims who are hopelessly stigmatized. However by offering this elaborate analysis, Loury also brings a new awareness to this vicious cycle of stereotypes, thereby equipping victims with the knowledge to break out of the circle and hopefully, change their perceptions of themselves as well as others’ perceptions of them.
Loury believes that racial stigma is more pernicious than racial discrimination because stigma enables Goffman’s “virtual social identity” theory, or the idea that a person’s identity and “deeper qualities” are constructed around and “on the basis of the easily observable indicators that may lie at hand” (3). This is dangerous because certain qualities (both negative and positive) have become constructed as inalienable with appearance, specifically but not limited to race. Therefore stigma, a more abstract notion, lays the framework for discrimination to occur. As Joyce touches on the idea that racial stigma versus racial discrimination is posed as perception against treatment, I believe that stigma is an avenue to discrimination, for if one is to be a certain way (defined by their appearance) then there must be a defined way of treating someone with specific appearances (through the use of discrimination). I would agree with this statement and go as far as to say that all visible intersectional categories are connected to the ways in which people are treated in the social.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the second question, I believe that Loury presents a good beginning to answering the question of how race is constructed. Perhaps if Loury (and he might in later chapters) contextualizes race more thoroughly it would be easier to accept this for those not familiar with critical race theory. For me, context regarding the journey of the social construction of race becomes important in understanding the current and future understandings and uses of race.
I believe that when Loury discusses self-confirming stereotypes, one must look to the power in which internalized oppression has over both individuals and groups. As Joyce notes vicious cycles of stereotyping, it is important to understand the power in which stigma and self-fulfilling prophecies have in defining one’s own identity. I do not think that Loury’s discussion of self-confirming stereotypes works to further disempower marginalized groups but works to bring about conversations regarding the possibilities of understanding internalized oppression and self-confirming stereotypes as what they are, stereotypes that have a way of being internalized. Controlling images work to further marginalize individuals and when these are the only images present, it is hard to think outside these confining images. By discussing these issues, Loury attempts to bring about a conversation that potentially has the ability to bring about new ideas of race, gender, sexuality, ability and more, created by those that identify in a positive way with these identity categories, resulting in agency. Positive self-naming has a potential in assisting in agency creation.
I agree with Glenn’s argument that racial stigma is more “pernicious” then racial discrimination, on the account that racial stigma is the direct cause of racial inequality. In the scenario that was provided, the stigma that the policeman had, a preconception about a race, is what led to the officer’s perception of the subjects “law-abidingness”. This is then the catalyst that leds to the construction of an “identity unreflectively imputed to someone by observers who, not being privy to extensive idiosyncratic information, draw conclusions about a person's deeper qualities on the basis of the easily observable indicators that may lie at hand” (Goffman’s “virtual social identity”). I believe that what Goffman is calling “virtual social identity” is the racial discrimination product that results from the existence of racial stigmas. As Glenn explained, in the case of African Americans, it is because of this discrimination that there is a great discrepancy in the advances of African Americans and Caucasian within America, not due to natural factors as assure by Myrdal’s "vicious circles". It is due to pressing factors such as these, as explained by Glenn, that I believe that it is in fact an injustice to be “colorblind” and NOT to consider these central factors that are facing minority groups. If such factors are not addressed, in both a governmental and social sense, it will allow for the continued disadvantagment of African Americans, as well as other minority groups.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to touch on question three. I agree with Joyce and believe that the self-confirming stereotype is more dangerous, because it is internal. It is similar to what we discussed in class about students in remedial learning groups, which become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a student is constantly told that he or she is dumb, he or she will eventually believe that about himself and thus continue to receive bad grades. The same is true about marginalization. On Loury’s subject matter, if a particular race is always forced to act a certain way, or treated a certain way, eventually individuals of that race may believe that that is the way he or she should act, reinforcing the existing stereotype.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to juxtapose the ideas of Loury and Friere. I think Loury and Friere have a similar view of oppression in the sense that for Friere oppression becomes most dangerous when it is internalized, which is the case in certain models of education. However, unlike Loury, Friere does provide agency through the problem posing model of education. Here he provides a means for the oppressed to overcome their oppression. Yet, I believe Loury does remove the agency from traditionally marginalized groups because he places the blame for their marginalization on social constructions based on history, something that cannot be changed. But Friere seeks to use the existing institutions to enact a change for the future.
I agree with almost all my fellow classmates that racial stigma is much more “pernicious” than racial discrimination because it is very difficult to directly identify and stop oneself and others from engaging in it. I agree with Aubrie on the idea that stigma is an avenue to discrimination and that people will be treated and perceived a certain way because of their appearance. Anna’s discussion of the self-confirming stereotype is what I thought deserved attention. This stereotype is extremely perilous because if a certain race is seen in a certain light and viewed with distinct pejorative stereotypes, it is difficult to rise above them and truly believe that as a member of a minority group, you could overcome those stereotypes when no one around you is succeeding. But I do believe that if a constituent of a minority group truly believes he or she can make a difference and stand strong against a view that has stood the test of time, he or she will take action to do make a change – the main factor is motivation. This article reminded me of our discussion of the Ainsworth-Darnell article and the ability of minorities to succeed in school regardless of the presence of resistance and how certain perceptions are not as they seem. What intrigued me in this article was Glenn’s discussion of Chapter 2, whose goal is to “illustrate the sense in which it can he ‘rational’ for an observer to use racial information to assess a subject's functionally relevant but nonracial traits, assuming that those traits are not directly observable” (3). I am curious to read this and see what is classified as “rational” because can’t think of many instances in which this action would be rational. This may be going to far, but I think in order to combat racial inequities, we need to take whatever risks may be involved in situations rather than using racial information to assess a person’s nonracial traits.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with many of the comments that were posted on this post. The internalization of a stereotype has haunted many people of color. One of the common themes that we have discussed, implicitly or explicitly, is the way that power gets enveloped in several ways. This reminded me of Zeus Leonardo's piece on White Supremacy evoked some of the themes that I wanted to highlight in this post. Loury states, "… all about embodied social signification. As such, much depends on the processes through which powerful meanings come to be associated with particular bodily marks.” This shows how our society has racially marked different bodies according to certain traits. For example, association of skin color, hair, nose structure, mouth shape, eye color, etc. have categorized people into groups of people. These groups are then classified into a hierarchy in axes of power relations. Leonardo's piece is meaningful to me because it allows me to think about how racist projects and regimes were created to colonize, exterminate, and wage war.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Loury’s argument regarding race as embodied social signification, I believe that he is more or less correct. While it may seem rather simple, perhaps that is the beauty of the definition. My own understanding of race is very similar to Loury’s definition. I view race as a social construction that is masked as a biological truth in which a prescribed set of values and culture is attributed to a certain group of people based solely on their physical attributes. As a result, I think Loury’s argument regarding race is very similar to my own. If there is one failing in his definition, it is the attention he pays to society’s perception of individuals as a result of their race and the belief of people that race is a biological and scientific truth. While he does say “powerful meanings come to be associated with particular body marks,” which is more or less correct, it still perhaps does not do the great complexities regarding race and society justice.
ReplyDelete