Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
Racism has been a core topic in social psychology since the 1930s. Central to most definitions of racism is the belief in
a biological hierarchy between different social groups based on perceived racial differences. As a complex social issue multiple
social psychological perspectives have been advanced to understand and theorize beliefs, behavior, and social practices that
sustain racial inequality ranging from the individual to the social level of explanation. These include personality theories;
social cognition models; realistic group conflict; social identity theory; critical discursive approaches, studies of White
privilege; and embodied racism. Although these perspectives are frequently argued to be inconsistent with each other, recent
attempts at integration are providing richer accounts of this phenomenon.
864 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 19 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24082-8
Racism: Social Psychological Perspectives 865
groups. To participate in society, minority groups often have to disgust, and sometimes fear, which tend to motivate avoidance
surrender their own cultural heritage and adopt those of the rather than intentionally destructive behaviors.” In both of
dominant group (e.g., the White majority). these accounts, individuals strive to maintain a nonprejudiced
Although prejudice has been condemned within image, both to themselves and to others, and struggle uncon-
psychology as negative and pernicious, it has also been criti- sciously to resolve the internal psychological ambivalence that
cized for depoliticizing the issue of racial inequality. Because is produced by maintaining a contradictory set of attitudes and
the concept of prejudice is primarily seen as located within the beliefs. By justifying and legitimating social inequalities
psychology of the individual, it fails to recognize the wider between groups on the basis of factors other than race,
historical, social, and institutional structures that support racial members of dominant groups can avoid attributions of racism
inequality. Because of this narrowness, the concept of prejudice and thus maintain and protect a nonprejudiced self-image.
is often challenged as actually part of the problem of racial Indeed the psychological and social motivation to dodge
inequality – by making it an individual pathology rather than a prejudiced identity is a common thread in contemporary
a political and social reality. As many social theorists have theorizing on racism.
argued, this has had the net effect of obscuring the political and Contemporary racism, therefore, is seen as more insidious
ideological dimensions of prejudice. Racism can persist in and difficult to identify because of its subtle and covert nature.
institutional structures and policies in the absence of prejudice This has led to the proliferation of implicit measures to
at the individual level (Henriques, 1984). identify and measure this more subtle racial bias (Greenwald
et al., 2003). For example, the Implicit Association Test is
New Racism a response latency measure using subliminal primes to test
the strength of association between social categories (e.g.,
Over the past 50 years, social psychologists and social scientists
‘Black’ or ‘White’) and positive and negative trait
more broadly have argued that contemporary racism has
characteristics. Slower responses to stereotype inconsistent
become less about beliefs in a biological hierarchy between
associations (Black þ positive traits and White þ negative
groups, and increasingly about beliefs in the cultural superi-
traits) than to stereotype consistent associations
ority of a dominant group’s values, norms, and practices
(Black þ negative traits and White þ positive traits) is treated
(Barker, 1981). Survey studies consistently demonstrate that
as evidence for an implicit bias or prejudice toward Blacks.
blunt, hostile, segregationist, and White supremacist beliefs are
Indeed the distinction between implicit and explicit racial
less openly acceptable to White majority group members in
bias is now so ubiquitous in social psychology that it is
Western liberal democracies. However, racial inequality
sometimes (erroneously) assumed that implicit measures
continues to exist. To explain this, a distinction is therefore
reflect people’s true or real attitudes whereas explicit measures
commonly made between ‘old-fashioned racism’ and ‘modern’
merely reflect social desirability norms. It has been argued,
(McConahay, 1986) or ‘symbolic racism’ (Kinder and Sears,
however, that implicit measures do not tap racial attitudes or
1981), which in contrast, is subtle, covert, and paradoxically,
beliefs per se but deeply ingrained stereotypes strongly asso-
endorses egalitarianism. Modern racism rejects racial segrega-
ciated with particular groups. Devine’s (1989) dissociation
tion and notions of biological supremacy, and is instead, based
model of prejudice is consistent with this view and posits that
on feelings that certain social groups transgress important
stereotypes are more primitive cognitive structures learned
social values such as the work ethic, individualism, self-reli-
early in life that can be automatically activated, whereas racial
ance, and self-discipline: values that are embodied in the
attitudes (prejudice) are learned later in life and can be either
Protestant ethic. Symbolic or modern racism justifies and
inconsistent or consistent with these stereotypes. The fact that
legitimates social inequities based on moral feelings that
negative stereotypes can be unconsciously activated even
certain groups violate such traditional values.
among people with low levels of explicit prejudice should not
Gaertner and Dovidio (1986) have also proposed models of
be taken as evidence that prejudice is an inevitable and
racism that address the changing and complex nature of
natural cognitive tendency in everyone. As we will discuss
contemporary beliefs about race. Their ‘ambivalent racism’
below, the inevitability of prejudice perspective is associated
and ‘aversive racism’ models both posit that contemporary
with cognitive models of prejudice.
racial attitudes have become complex, contradictory, and
multidimensional. In the ambivalent racism model, pro-Black
and anti-Black sentiments are seen to coexist within the person Theories of Racism
and to reflect different value structures held by the individual.
Pro-Black attitudes reflect humanitarian and egalitarian values A variety of explanations for prejudice and racism have been
that emphasize equality and social justice, whereas anti-Black advanced by social psychologists throughout the twentieth
attitudes reflect individualism, the Protestant ethic, hard century. The prevalence of particular kinds of explanations has
work, individual achievement, and self-reliance. Similarly, the shifted during this time depending on wider historical and
aversive racism model emphasizes the coexistence of a contra- social factors and the dominance of specific paradigmatic
dictory complex of attitudes: on the one hand, liberal egali- frameworks within social psychology itself. Here we provide an
tarian principles of justice and equality; and on the other, overview of six current approaches to racism ranging from the
a residue set of negative feelings and beliefs about particular individual to the social level of explanation: personality theo-
groups that are learned early in life, and which are difficult to ries; social cognition models; realistic group conflict and social
completely eradicate. Gaertner and Dovidio (1986: p. 63) identity theory; critical discursive approaches, studies of White
describe these negative feelings as “discomfort, uneasiness, privilege; and embodied racism.
866 Racism: Social Psychological Perspectives
prejudice as outcomes of internal psychological drives or dominance, and privilege are maintained through overt racial
differences in personality, in this approach conflict is viewed as ideology, but given the increasing opprobrium against the
emerging from ‘real’ group-based interests. The famous boys’ expression of such views, social inequalities are more
camp field studies by Sherif et al. (1961) demonstrated how the commonly legitimated through the flexible and contradictory
creation of two competing groups was able to produce ingroup use of liberal egalitarian arguments that draw on principles
favoring and outgroup derogating attitudes and behavior such as freedom, individual rights, and equality. Discursive
between the two groups. When the social conditions were studies in several Western countries including Australia, Britain,
changed, however, and the two groups were required to Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States
cooperate to obtain resources or to complete valued tasks, have demonstrated how majority group members express
intergroup hostility began to diminish. negative and even hostile views of minorities by the use of self-
Another series of famous studies, the minimal group sufficient rhetorical arguments premised on liberal and egali-
experiments by Henri Tajfel and his colleagues formed the tarian values such as treating everybody equally.
foundations upon which social Identity theory (SIT) was built Critical discursive research has demonstrated the varied
(Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Many social psychologists have ways the category of racism is itself highly contested in
concluded erroneously from the minimal group experiments everyday life: that is, defining what is and what is not racist is
that the mere categorization of people into ingroups and out- far from being a value-free, neutral assessment. Rather, the
groups is sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination and category of racism itself is constructed flexibly and variably,
prejudice. Although SIT stresses the psychological importance and can be used to manage the moral accountability and
for groups to differentiate themselves positively from other identity of an individual or group. van Dijk (1992) docu-
groups this does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with ingroup ments the ubiquitous nature of denials of racism through the
enhancement and outgroup derogation though regrettably use of disclaimers such as “I’m not racist but . .” Contem-
these are all too frequent occurrences. Groups can maintain porary race talk therefore, is strategically organized to deny
a positive social identity without threatening the social identity prejudice and racism. By redrawing the boundaries of what
of others. SIT posits that groups and their members strive to may be legitimately defined as ‘racist,’ the category of racism
achieve some sort of differentiation from other groups, in ways may be used to position a person or group as ‘not racist’
that are shaped by the nature of the intergroup context and on by placing their own behavior and views outside of
dimensions of importance to them. Sometimes those dimen- these boundaries.
sions of importance emphasize tolerance, generosity, and These language practices are forms of power that are prod-
beneficence, but again all too often these dimensions empha- ucts of particular historical, hierarchical relationships between
size superiority, dominance, and preserving ingroup privilege groups of people, in which some people have unjustly and
(Ellemers and Haslam, 2012). unfoundedly claimed dominance over others. Understood as
power relationships, racism shapes the lives of everyone within
these hierarchies, both the oppressed and the oppressors. In
Critical Discursive Research
this sense, ‘race’ is a form of categorization that reflects partic-
Critical discursive research views racism as interactive and ular forms of power relations between groups of people, rather
communicative and as located within the language practices than reflecting the actual attributes (whether they be physical or
and discourses of a society. This body of work emphasizes the behavioral) of any particular group of people.
ambivalent and contradictory nature of contemporary racism,
but explicitly avoids making claims about the psychology of
Embodied Racism
individual perceivers. Discursive studies analyze how people
talk, discuss, and debate matters to do with ‘race’ and While critical discursive research has been invaluable for
intergroup relations in both formal and informal settings elucidating the perpetuation and legitimation of racism, it has
(van den Berg et al., 2003). also been criticized for its privileging of discourse; for ignoring
It is through everyday language practices, both in formal the materiality of oppression. Discursive work has tended to
and informal talk that relations of power, dominance, and become heavily involved in identifying the rhetorical aspects of
exploitation become reproduced and legitimated. The analytic racism and oppression, but has been less concerned with the
site for discursive research is how discursive resources and nexus between discourse, space, and place. Such a research
rhetorical arguments are put together to construct different focus has been taken up by Durrheim and Dixon (2005) in
social and ‘racial’ identities, and to provide accounts that South Africa.
legitimate these differences and identities as ‘real’ and ‘natural.’ Durrheim and Dixon (2005) combine discourse analysis
Discursive studies locate these language practices or ‘ways of with ethnographic mapping to identify the ways in which
talking’ at a societal level, as products of a racist society rather discourses are embodied in people’s use of public places such
than as individual psychological and/or cognitive products. as beaches. They demonstrate that, even in post-Apartheid
The analytic site therefore is not the prejudiced or racist indi- South Africa, there remains significant physical segregation
vidual, but the discursive and linguistic resources that are on South Africa’s beaches – Whites and Blacks use different
available within an inequitable society (Wetherell and Potter, areas of the beach, and use the beach at different times. These
1992). This approach has been able to identify how linguistic spatial practices are legitimated through discourses about
resources are combined in flexible and contradictory ways to ‘appropriate beach behavior’ with White beach-goers explain-
reproduce and justify racist outcomes in modern liberal ing that they leave the beach because Black beach-goers are too
democracies. In some instances, existing relations of power, loud, create mess, and do not respect personal space. Their
868 Racism: Social Psychological Perspectives
research demonstrates the interdependence of discourse and and orientations. It also raises the question of whether inte-
embodied practices and how “‘race relations’ are constructed gration is desirable.
both in language and in located bodily practices, emphasising Duckitt (1992) argues that these multiple social psycho-
how people describe and account for the racialised features of logical perspectives are not necessarily competing paradigms,
social life that they participate in” (Durrheim and Dixon, 2005: but rather each is a valid response to different aspects of this
p. 459). They argue that without such a combined approach, social phenomenon: unconscious processes, personality,
research on racism cannot capture the lived experience of cognitions, social norms and linguistic practices, power, social
racism, or of anti-racism. Their observations and interviews structure, and intergroup relations.
capture the ongoing nature of racism in everyday life, even Duckitt (1992) has proposed an integrative framework
where overt official structures maintaining inequality are that identifies four primary causal processes of prejudice:
dismantled. internal psychological processes; social and intergroup
dynamics; social transmission; and individual differences. He
argues that each of these causal processes provides a partial
Racism as White Privilege
but essential contribution to the explanation of prejudice:
While traditional research on racism focuses on attitudes and psychological processes build a human propensity for prej-
practices toward minorities, recent research on White privilege udice; social and intergroup dynamics elaborate this
turns the gaze from minorities to the majority group. Thus propensity into socially shared patterns of interaction; these
there is a shift in focus – the gaze moves away from those who patterns are socially transmitted throughout social groups;
bear the brunt of racism, and toward the discourses and insti- and individual differences in susceptibility to prejudice
tutional practices of those who benefit from racism (Aveling, modify these social norms. Each theory is limited on its own
2004). This body of work focuses on White identity construc- as it focuses on and seeks to elaborate just one of these
tion (e.g., Carter, 1997). It also examines the ways in which causal processes.
whiteness is produced and reproduced in different social and While Duckitt’s integrative framework has considerable
cultural sites; and the implications of these constructions for appeal more recent critical approaches that focus on racial
intergroup relations and anti-racism (e.g., Hage, 1998). discourse, power, whiteness, and embodiment are largely
Whiteness studies is primarily concerned with how White ignored in this model. Bringing all of these together we
people’s identities are shaped by broader institutionalized conclude that social psychology has conceptualized racism to
forms of racism and brings to the fore both the benefits that be a normative, often invisible system of social practices,
White people accrue because of their privileged position in cognitions, emotions, and discourses that are perpetuated
society and the responsibilities they have for addressing racism through all levels (individual, interpersonal, intergroup, insti-
(Giroux, 1997). tutional) that privilege one social group and disadvantage and
Clearly the category ‘White’ or ‘White people’ is prob- marginalize other social groups. These practices can be overt
lematic as a way of referencing the dominant majority in assertions of biological difference, but in today’s social and
Western liberal democracies as it fails to adequately reflect political climate, are more likely to be covert and implicit.
the ethnic and cultural heterogeneity of group members that
may identify as ‛White.’ Nonetheless by marking ‘whiteness’ See also: Authoritarian Personality; Critical Psychology;
(not only as a category of skin color, but of cultural capital Desegregation; Embodied Social Cognition; Ethnicity and
(Hage, 1998)), there is an attempt to make visible the Migration in Europe; Immigration: Social Psychological
unearned power and privilege that accrues to the dominant Aspects; Intergroup Relations; Levels of Analysis in Social
majority, especially those that have access to the highest Psychology; Social Categorization; Social Cognition; Social
cultural and social capital – in terms of appearance, ancestry, Dominance Orientation; Social Identity in Social Psychology;
religion, socioeconomic status, education, and employment Social Psychology; Stereotypes in Social Psychology;
(Hage, 1998). Xenophobia: Social Psychological Aspects.
Broadly speaking, whiteness is “. the production and
reproduction of dominance rather than subordination, nor-
mativity rather than marginality, and privilege rather than Bibliography
disadvantage.” In this definition, whiteness is something that
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., Sanford, R.N., 1950. The
places White people in normative positions and grants White
Authoritarian Personality. Harper and Row, New York.
people unfair privileges. These positions and privileges are Allport, G.W., 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA.
often invisible to White people, because of this normativity. Altemeyer, B., 1981. Right-wing Authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press,
Indeed, it is this normativity that gives whiteness its power Winnipeg.
(Frankenberg, 1993: p. 236). Aveling, N., 2004. Being the descendant of colonialists: White identity in context. Race,
Ethnicity and Education 7, 57–71.
Barker, M., 1981. The New Racism. Junction, London.
Integrating Multiple Perspectives van den Berg, H., Wetherell, M., Houtkoop, H., 2003. Analysing Race Talk: Multi-
disciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview. Cambridge University Press,
This overview of social psychological approaches to racism New York.
Carter, R., 1997. Is white a race? Expressions of white racial identity. In: Fine, M.,
always raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to
Weis, L., Powell, L.C., Mun Wong, L. (Eds.), Off White: Readings on Race, Power,
integrate these different theories. This question has always been and Society. Routledge, New York, pp. 198–209.
a bone of contention within psychology, as analytic frame- Devine, P., 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: their automatic and controlled compo-
works differ significantly in their epistemological assumptions nents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (1), 5–18.
Racism: Social Psychological Perspectives 869
Duckitt, J., 1992. Psychology and prejudice: an historical analysis and integrative Kinder, D.R., Sears, D.O., 1981. Prejudice and politics: symbolic racism versus racial
framework. American Psychologist 47 (10), 1182–1193. threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40, 414–431.
Durrheim, K., Dixon, J., 2005. Studying talk and embodied practices: toward McCann-Mortimer, P., Augoustinos, M., LeCouteur, A., 2004. ‘Race’ and the human
a psychology of materiality of ‘race’ relations. Journal of Community and Applied genome project: constructions of scientific legitimacy. Discourse & Society 15 (4),
Social Psychology 15, 446–460. 409–432.
van Dijk, T.A., 1992. Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3, McConahay, J.B., 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale.
87–118. In: Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L. (Eds.), Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism.
Ellemers, N., Haslam, S.A., 2012. Social identity theory. In: Van Lange, P.A.M., Academic Press, New York, pp. 91–125.
Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T. (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Miles, R., Brown, M., 2003. Racism. Routledge, UK.
vol. 2. Sage, London, pp. 379–399. Moscovici, S., 1988. Notes towards a description of social representations. European
Frankenberg, R., 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Journal of Social Psychology 18, 211–250.
Whiteness. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Nosek, B., Hawkins, C., Frazier, R., 2011. Implicit social cognition: from measures to
Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., 1986. The aversive form of racism. In: Dovidio, J.F., mechanisms. Trends in Cognition Science 15 (4), 152–159.
Gaertner, S.L. (Eds.), Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism: Theory and Research. Pettigrew, T.F., 1958. Personality and sociocultural factors in intergroup attitudes:
Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 61–89. a cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2, 29–42.
Giroux, H.A., 1997. Racial politics and the pedagogy of whiteness. In: Hill, M. (Ed.), Richards, G., 1997. Race, Racism & Psychology: Towards a Reflexive History.
Whiteness: A Critical Reader. New York University Press, New York. Routledge, UK.
Greenwald, A., Nosek, B., Banaji, M., 2003. Understanding and using the implicit Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R., Sherif, C., 1961. Intergroup Conflict
association test: an improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social and Cooperation: The Robber’s Cave Experiment. University of Oklahoma Press,
Psychology 85 (2), 197–216. Norman.
Hage, G., 1998. White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., 2001. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social
Taylor & Francis, UK. Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Henriques, J., 1984. Social psychology and the politics of racism. In: Hollway, W., Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup relations. In:
Venn, C., Walkerdine, V., Henriques, J., Urwin, C. (Eds.), Changing the Subject: Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Brooks/Cole,
Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity. Routledge, UK, pp. 60–89. Monterey, CA, pp. 7–24.
Hopkins, N., Reicher, S.D., Levine, M., 1997. On the parallels between social cognition Wetherell, M., Potter, J., 1992. Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the
and the ‘new racism’. British Journal of Social Psychology 36, 305–330. Legitimation of Exploitation. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
Jones, J.M., 1997. Prejudice and Racism, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.