See other Health Articles
Title: Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism
Source:
Psychology Today
URL Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog ... rblind-ideology-is-form-racism
Published: Dec 27, 2011
Author: Monica Williams, Ph.D.
Post Date: 2012-01-01 11:57:42 by Dakmar
Keywords: None
Views: 150
Comments: 9
What is racial colorblindness? Racial issues are often uncomfortable to discuss and rife with stress and controversy. Many ideas have been advanced to address this sore spot in the American psyche. Currently, the most pervasive approach is known as colorblindness. Colorblindness is the racial ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity. At its face value, colorblindness seems like a good thing — really taking MLK seriously on his call to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It focuses on commonalities between people, such as their shared humanity. However, colorblindness alone is not sufficient to heal racial wounds on a national or personal level. It is only a half-measure that in the end operates as a form of racism. Problems with the colorblind approach Racism? Strong words, yes, but let's look the issue straight in its partially unseeing eye. In a colorblind society, Whites, who are unlikely to experience disadvantages due to race, can effectively ignore racism in American life, justify the current social order, and feel more comfortable with their relatively privileged standing in society (Fryberg, 2010). Most minorities, however, who regularly encounter difficulties due to race, experience colorblind ideologies quite differently. Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives. Let's break it down into simple terms: Color-Blind = "People of color — we don't see you (at least not that bad ‘colored' part)." As a person of color, I like who I am, and I don't want any aspect of that to be unseen or invisible. The need for colorblindness implies there is something shameful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn't talk about. Thus, colorblindness has helped make race into a taboo topic that polite people cannot openly discuss. And if you can't talk about it, you can't understand it, much less fix the racial problems that plague our society. Colorblindness is not the answer covering eyes If you can't see it, you can't fix it. Whites tend to view colorblindness as helpful to people of color by asserting that race does not matter (Tarca, 2005). But in America, most underrepresented minorities will explain that race does matter, as it affects opportunities, perceptions, income, and so much more. When race-related problems arise, colorblindness tends to individualize conflicts and shortcomings, rather than examining the larger picture with cultural differences, stereotypes, and values placed into context. Instead of resulting from an enlightened (albeit well-meaning) position, colorblindness comes from a lack of awareness of racial privilege conferred by Whiteness (Tarca, 2005). White people can guiltlessly subscribe to colorblindness because they are largely unaware of how race affects people of color and American society as a whole. Colorblindness in a psychotherapeutic relationship How might colorblindness cause harm? Here's an example close to home for those of you who are psychologically-minded. In the not-so-distant past, in psychotherapy a client's racial and ethnic remarks were viewed as a defensive shift away from important issues, and the therapist tended to interpret this as resistance (Comas-Diaz & Jacobsen, 1991). However, such an approach hinders the exploration of conflicts related to race, ethnicity, and culture. The therapist doesn't see the whole picture, and the client is left frustrated. A colorblind approach effectively does the same thing. Blind means not being able to see things. I don't want to be blind. I want to see things clearly, even if they make me uncomfortable. As a therapist I need to be able to hear and "see" everything my client is communicating on many different levels. I can't afford to be blind to anything. Would you want to see a surgeon who operated blindfolded? Of course not. Likewise, a therapist should not be blinded either, especially to something as critical as a person's culture or racial identity. By encouraging the exploration of racial and cultural concepts, the therapist can provide a more authentic opportunity to understand and resolve the client's problems (Comas-Diaz & Jacobsen, 1991). Nonetheless, I have encountered many fellow therapists who ascribe to a colorblind philosophy. They ignore race or pretend its personal, social, and historical effects don't exist. This approach ignores the incredibly salient experience of being stigmatized by society and represents an empathetic failure on the part of the therapist. Colorblindness does not foster equality or respect; it merely relieves the therapist of his or her obligation to address important racial differences and difficulties. Multiculturalism is better than blindness Research has shown that hearing colorblind messages predict negative outcomes among Whites, such as greater racial bias and negative affect; likewise colorblind messages cause stress in ethnic minorities, resulting in decreased cognitive performance (Holoien et al., 2011). Given how much is at stake, we can no longer afford to be blind. It's time for change and growth. It's time to see. The alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism, an ideology that acknowledges, highlights, and celebrates ethnoracial differences. It recognizes that each tradition has something valuable to offer. It is not afraid to see how others have suffered as a result of racial conflict or differences. So, how do we become multicultural? The following suggestions would make a good start (McCabe, 2011): Recognizing and valuing differences, Teaching and learning about differences, and Fostering personal friendships and organizational alliances Moving from colorblindness to multiculturalism is a process of change, and change is never easy, but we can't afford to stay the same. Poster Comment: So now racism = not treating minorities like Gods?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Dakmar (#0)
No, I think you miss the point - that "I don't see" is not the same as granting someone beingness as a unique individual person. It is a matter of perspective. It is to some extent, to give a slightly flawed analogy, like the difference between dating a stunning looking woman and one who is ordinary or plain. After 6 months how much difference is there? Effectively none. After time what is noticed most is who the person is not the coating. Certainly it is nice for the ego to have one's date eyed eagerly by other men but that is a very transient thing as well - a few moments at best and obsessive concern over it is simply another form of irrationality. Of course I don't subscribe to the writer's psychobabble either. While culture and experience do affect a person's outlook and reactions the mechanisms of the mind and the nature of individual awareness, as distinct from persona or personality, are the same regardless race. Race is a biological construct whereas personality and awareness exist as a distinct and different level of existence and awareness. Every intelligent person is aware that they are aware even if they don't have the polysyllables to express it in academically approved language. However, the perception, by some, that somehow the color of one's skin, or shape of one's eyes, somehow is reflective of the inner person is itself an irrational computation. Culture does have an effect, but culture is learned - it is not innate. The article's thesis is a putrid example of a very vile racism. It uses self- contradiction to attempt to justify racism. The only way to not be racist is to not judge people by their race. You can't save the village by destroying it. You can't preserve the principle that race is not a valid basis on which to judge others by violating it. And to do so is extremely dangerous: The hypocrisy undermines the principle of equality both because of the precedent it sets (which will eventually be used in ways those who mistakenly approve absolutely won't like,) and it creates resentment among those who get the short end of the stick. When that group is the majority, the danger becomes high that they will use the precedent against those who've wronged them unjustly by punishing them not for who they are as individuals but simply due to the racial group to which they belong. Moral rules that assign moral value to people based on group membership instead of solely on the intentional actions of each individual are evil. Those who espouse such rules should be ostracized, and the publications that publish them should be boycotted. Such rules cause division, not unity. United we stand, divided we fall. So now racism = not treating minorities like Gods?
#2. To: Dakmar (#0)
(Edited)
 | To paraphrase Einstein, "Government should be as powerless as possible, but not so powerless that it cannot perform its sole function (the protection of individual rights.)" |
#3. To: sourcery (#2)
So I shouldn't have posted this? :) Those who espouse such rules should be ostracized, and the publications that publish them should be boycotted.
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
#4. To: sourcery (#2) (Edited)
Hear! Hear! My only quibble would be to replace evil with irrational. Race, and sex, are two of the subjects upon which mankind is most aberrated (not that there isn't plenty of other abberant behaviors to go around). United we stand, divided we fall. Moral rules that assign moral value to people based on group membership instead of solely on the intentional actions of each individual are evil.
#5. To: Dakmar, sourcery (#3)
So I shouldn't have posted this? :) May I intrude to offer a discreet suggestion for possible placement? ;-) All humor aside it is a topic that should be confronted and spoken of rationally and aired with the weight it deserves as it is one of those subjects that cuts directly to who and what we are. Those who espouse such rules should be ostracized, and the publications that publish them should be boycotted.
#6. To: Dakmar (#3)
There are no athiests in foxholes. So I shouldn't have posted this?
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (
#7. To: Esso (#6)
Do the grunts still dig foxholes, or is that a memory of kinder, gentler wars? There are no athiests in foxholes.
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#7)
What the hell would I know about wars? The last war this country was involved in ended 15 years before I was born. You know the one, the one where we sided with the jewish bolsheviks in "The City" & Russia to make the world safe for communism and banksters. We lost that one, picked the wrong side.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (
#9. To: Dakmar (#3)
There's a difference between posting or publishing a reference to an article and endorsing what it says. Just ask Ron Paul. If Psychology Today isn't endorsing the article they published, they should say so.
| To paraphrase Einstein, "Government should be as powerless as possible, but not so powerless that it cannot perform its sole function (the protection of individual rights.)" |
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest