Confronting Racism of Omission

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 ETHNIC STUDIES Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race Pub Date : 2023-10-18 DOI:10.1017/s1742058x23000140
Jonathan J. B. Mijs, Anna Dominique (Nikki) Herrera Huang, William Regan
{"title":"Confronting Racism of Omission","authors":"Jonathan J. B. Mijs, Anna Dominique (Nikki) Herrera Huang, William Regan","doi":"10.1017/s1742058x23000140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter movement have brought ethnic and racial inequalities to the forefront of public conversation on both sides of the Atlantic. However, research shows that people routinely overestimate the progress made towards equality and underestimate disparities between racial and ethnic majority and minority groups. Common among the American public is a naive belief in equal opportunity that stands in sharp contrast to the reality of structural racial inequity. Across the Atlantic, Dutch people’s self-perception of a tolerant, progressive, and egalitarian society means that racism and discrimination are topics often avoided, rendering invisible the stigmatization of ethnic and racial minorities. The result is racism of omission: ethnic and racial disparities are minimized and attributed to factors other than discrimination, which leads to legitimize inequities and justify non-intervention. Against this background, we field an internationally comparative randomized survey experiment to study whether (willful) ignorance about racial and ethnic inequality can be addressed through the provision of information. We find that facts about ethnic and racial inequality, on the whole, (1) have the greatest impact on people’s perceptions of inequality as compared to their explanations of inequality and policy attitudes, (2) register most strongly with majority-group White participants as compared to participants from minority groups, (3) cut across partisan lines, and (4) effect belief change most consistently in the Netherlands, as compared to the United States. We make sense of these findings through the lens of how ‘shocking’ the information provided was to different groups of participants.","PeriodicalId":47158,"journal":{"name":"Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Du Bois Review-Social Science Research on Race","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x23000140","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter movement have brought ethnic and racial inequalities to the forefront of public conversation on both sides of the Atlantic. However, research shows that people routinely overestimate the progress made towards equality and underestimate disparities between racial and ethnic majority and minority groups. Common among the American public is a naive belief in equal opportunity that stands in sharp contrast to the reality of structural racial inequity. Across the Atlantic, Dutch people’s self-perception of a tolerant, progressive, and egalitarian society means that racism and discrimination are topics often avoided, rendering invisible the stigmatization of ethnic and racial minorities. The result is racism of omission: ethnic and racial disparities are minimized and attributed to factors other than discrimination, which leads to legitimize inequities and justify non-intervention. Against this background, we field an internationally comparative randomized survey experiment to study whether (willful) ignorance about racial and ethnic inequality can be addressed through the provision of information. We find that facts about ethnic and racial inequality, on the whole, (1) have the greatest impact on people’s perceptions of inequality as compared to their explanations of inequality and policy attitudes, (2) register most strongly with majority-group White participants as compared to participants from minority groups, (3) cut across partisan lines, and (4) effect belief change most consistently in the Netherlands, as compared to the United States. We make sense of these findings through the lens of how ‘shocking’ the information provided was to different groups of participants.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
面对不作为的种族主义
2019冠状病毒病大流行和“黑人的命也重要”运动将种族和种族不平等问题推到了大西洋两岸公众对话的最前沿。然而,研究表明,人们通常高估了在平等方面取得的进展,低估了种族和民族多数群体与少数群体之间的差距。美国公众普遍抱有机会平等的天真信念,这与结构性种族不平等的现实形成鲜明对比。在大西洋彼岸,荷兰人自认为是一个宽容、进步和平等的社会,这意味着种族主义和歧视往往是避而不谈的话题,对少数民族和种族的污名化视而不见。其结果是疏忽的种族主义:民族和种族差异被最小化,并归因于歧视以外的因素,这导致不平等合法化,并为不干预辩护。在此背景下,我们进行了一项国际比较随机调查实验,以研究是否可以通过提供信息来解决对种族和民族不平等的(故意)无知。我们发现,总体而言,关于民族和种族不平等的事实:(1)与人们对不平等的解释和政策态度相比,对人们对不平等的看法影响最大;(2)与少数族裔参与者相比,多数白人参与者的反应最为强烈;(3)跨越党派界限;(4)与美国相比,荷兰对信念变化的影响最为一致。我们通过提供给不同参与者群体的信息有多“令人震惊”来理解这些发现。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Four More Years! or So What?: The Mental Health Significance of Barack Obama’s 2012 Presidential Re-Election among Black Adults Miscegenation Madness: Interracial Intimacy and the Politics of ‘Purity’ in Twentieth-Century South Africa Principle-Policy and Principle-Personal Gaps in Americans’ Diversity Attitudes Foreshadowing Du Bois: James McCune Smith and the Shaping of Nineteenth Century Black Social Scientists Royalty, Racism, and Risk: An Analysis of Du Bois’s Thesis on Black Masculinity Among Young Black People with Diverse Sexual Identities
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1