I tend to agree that we can become post-racial. But banter about the idea rarely involves a clear set of properties defining the post-racial. What would it look like? How is it supposed to function? How is it different from a racial society? On the last point, one hits squarely the question of whether this supposed phenomena of "colorblindness" is possible or even desirable.
A good place to start would be the empirical aspects of race. The watering-down of great sociological and psychological research during 60s and 70s is what allowed the anti-PC movement to arise. The idea of using respectful titles was separated from the empirical fact that names matter to things that we presumably desire, like self-esteem.
Now, social-psych research has come a long ways since the 60s and 70s. I'm not saying all of those studies would pass the sniff test today. My point is merely that, if we want to talk about race, we need to define the empirical criterion. (Here is a powerful example of what I mean.) Moving to realm of rhetoric is just asking for the talking heads to drive in with their propaganda-tanks and win the battle of ideas.
Further, relying on marketers and advertisers to measure the opinions of the public seems problematic. In the first place, they often rely upon and are vigorous consumers of social scienfic research. Secondly, while gathering self-reported data can be useful, if we really want to understand social phenomena, we need to know more than just the fact of the matter, but causes and therapies. This is something social sciences pursue, which marketers and advertisers tend to avoid.... and insofar as they pursue therapies, the social good is not really their interest.
The article I point to above, for instance, identifies both the phenomena, possible causes, and possible therapies. In fact, one might say that they are unexpected therapies. For instance, it points out that inter-racial association is not necessarily good enough to overcome this "other-race" effect. Training seems important.
So, I guess my point is that a post-racial society means different things to different people. And my worry is that, while it might in fact be true that for each generation, "culture is something to be taken apart and remade in their own image," this isn't necessarily a good thing. There ought to be some sort of guiding principle. And it seems like the guiding principle of the Southpark generation is a perfect revelation of the illness arising when empiricism is co-opted by a rhetoric that can so easily be turned on its head.
A good place to start would be the empirical aspects of race. The watering-down of great sociological and psychological research during 60s and 70s is what allowed the anti-PC movement to arise. The idea of using respectful titles was separated from the empirical fact that names matter to things that we presumably desire, like self-esteem.
Now, social-psych research has come a long ways since the 60s and 70s. I'm not saying all of those studies would pass the sniff test today. My point is merely that, if we want to talk about race, we need to define the empirical criterion. (Here is a powerful example of what I mean.) Moving to realm of rhetoric is just asking for the talking heads to drive in with their propaganda-tanks and win the battle of ideas.
Further, relying on marketers and advertisers to measure the opinions of the public seems problematic. In the first place, they often rely upon and are vigorous consumers of social scienfic research. Secondly, while gathering self-reported data can be useful, if we really want to understand social phenomena, we need to know more than just the fact of the matter, but causes and therapies. This is something social sciences pursue, which marketers and advertisers tend to avoid.... and insofar as they pursue therapies, the social good is not really their interest.
The article I point to above, for instance, identifies both the phenomena, possible causes, and possible therapies. In fact, one might say that they are unexpected therapies. For instance, it points out that inter-racial association is not necessarily good enough to overcome this "other-race" effect. Training seems important.
So, I guess my point is that a post-racial society means different things to different people. And my worry is that, while it might in fact be true that for each generation, "culture is something to be taken apart and remade in their own image," this isn't necessarily a good thing. There ought to be some sort of guiding principle. And it seems like the guiding principle of the Southpark generation is a perfect revelation of the illness arising when empiricism is co-opted by a rhetoric that can so easily be turned on its head.
No comments:
Post a Comment