Inaction, Silence, Focus, and Power: Identifying and Assessing Folk Theories of the Racism of Omission

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Evangeline Warren, Lauren Valentino
{"title":"Inaction, Silence, Focus, and Power: Identifying and Assessing Folk Theories of the Racism of Omission","authors":"Evangeline Warren, Lauren Valentino","doi":"10.1093/socpro/spad054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent scholarship has advanced a concept of racism operating through omission. Omission captures both inaction and action, highlighting how systems of oppression rely on inertia in addition to discriminatory action to perpetuate inequality. Yet little is known about how laypersons understand the role of omission in propagating racism in the United States. Building on this premise, we employ a mixed-methods approach to document and test folk theories of the racism of omission. We interview diverse individuals (N=40) about their appraisals of racism; we use these findings to design a vignette study which we fielded to a national sample (N=1,174). Interview data reveal that some Americans do understand omission to be a form of racism, highlighting (1) bystander inaction, (2) silencing of experiences of racism, (3) overfocus on White issues, and (4) disparities in positions of power as instances where inaction, exclusion, or inertia constitute a form of racism. Data show that Americans are most likely to consider overfocus and silencing as forms of omission-based racism, and that racism appraisals depend on the victim’s race. We find that political ideology, gender, income, race, and education shape appraisals of racism as omission. These findings have implications for measures of perceived racism and discrimination.","PeriodicalId":48307,"journal":{"name":"Social Problems","volume":"231 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Problems","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spad054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent scholarship has advanced a concept of racism operating through omission. Omission captures both inaction and action, highlighting how systems of oppression rely on inertia in addition to discriminatory action to perpetuate inequality. Yet little is known about how laypersons understand the role of omission in propagating racism in the United States. Building on this premise, we employ a mixed-methods approach to document and test folk theories of the racism of omission. We interview diverse individuals (N=40) about their appraisals of racism; we use these findings to design a vignette study which we fielded to a national sample (N=1,174). Interview data reveal that some Americans do understand omission to be a form of racism, highlighting (1) bystander inaction, (2) silencing of experiences of racism, (3) overfocus on White issues, and (4) disparities in positions of power as instances where inaction, exclusion, or inertia constitute a form of racism. Data show that Americans are most likely to consider overfocus and silencing as forms of omission-based racism, and that racism appraisals depend on the victim’s race. We find that political ideology, gender, income, race, and education shape appraisals of racism as omission. These findings have implications for measures of perceived racism and discrimination.
不作为、沉默、关注和权力:识别和评估不作为种族主义的民间理论
最近的学术研究提出了通过不作为运作的种族主义概念。不作为既包括不作为,也包括作为,强调了压迫制度是如何在歧视性行动之外依靠惯性来延续不平等的。然而,对于非专业人士如何理解不作为在美国种族主义传播中的作用却知之甚少。在此前提下,我们采用了一种混合方法来记录和检验不作为种族主义的民间理论。我们采访了不同的个人(人数=40),了解他们对种族主义的评价;我们利用这些调查结果设计了一项小故事研究,并对全国样本(人数=1,174)进行了实地调查。访谈数据显示,一些美国人确实将不作为理解为种族主义的一种形式,他们强调(1)旁观者的不作为,(2)对种族主义经历的沉默,(3)对白人问题的过度关注,以及(4)权力地位的不平等,这些不作为、排斥或惰性构成了种族主义的一种形式。数据显示,美国人最有可能将过度关注和沉默视为不作为形式的种族主义,而对种族主义的评价取决于受害者的种族。我们发现,政治意识形态、性别、收入、种族和教育程度都会影响对疏忽型种族主义的评价。这些发现对感知种族主义和歧视的测量方法有一定的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Problems
Social Problems SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Social Problems brings to the fore influential sociological findings and theories that have the ability to help us both better understand--and better deal with--our complex social environment. Some of the areas covered by the journal include: •Conflict, Social Action, and Change •Crime and Juvenile Delinquency •Drinking and Drugs •Health, Health Policy, and Health Services •Mental Health •Poverty, Class, and Inequality •Racial and Ethnic Minorities •Sexual Behavior, Politics, and Communities •Youth, Aging, and the Life Course
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信