The more I read about Michael Brown, race-relations in
America, and the perception of a “war on black people” many see based on their
race, the more I simply see intercultural conflict which actually crosses just
about every “racial” and “ethnic” line ever.
See, it’s actually not about race; it’s about identity and
power. When it comes to
African-Americans, it’s more “black and white” simply because many
African-Americans create their identity based on their skin color and—for many
of them—their cultural background and norms follow from that so there’s very
little difference between the lines circumscribing their “race” and their “culture”. For the rest of us—especially “generic”
whites—we don’t really do that. Instead,
our identity is often delineated by class, religion, familial origin, locality,
and many other factors we use—instead of color/race—to determine who “us” is
and who “them” is.
We typically only see a black/white dichotomy when a large
group of non-white people essentially force it onto us or focus only on skin
color. Otherwise we may see ourselves as
different from the next group of white people down the block or in the next
county or under the next church/synagogue/mosque next door as we do between
black people and ourselves. Or, or me
personally, some combination of being poor, blue collar, and without much in
the way of credentials for most of my adult life.
That’s actually a natural tendency.
See, humans and even our closely related kin—the chimpanzees
and bonobos—are very good at establishing a cohesive in-group, even if it’s
with someone we don’t like. Then—within that
in-group—we usually build relationships along with a set of rules and norms
that essentially gives a “discount” for living to people within our group. That discount may be shared food, support
with child-rearing, collective protection, and many other actions that require
some level of sacrifice or risk on our individual parts but which usually end
up being a collective good.
With such “discounts” comes the possibility of others taking
advantage of us and inducing cost on our parts with no resulting benefits. Because of this, I think, we make definitive
distinctions, often to varying degrees, based on identity and how much we’ll
risk on others.
When such small groups can live in (general) isolation and
being isolated is risky and costly, it also serves as both motivation and means
to create and enforce rules to protect the advantages.
Our problem is one of both larger groups—where the personal
relationships needed to reinforce such behavior become problematic—along with
the idea and ideal of “universal group membership” where everyone can partake
in such discount agreements. Once beyond
the ability for individual relationships or mutual beliefs—like religion—to compel
non-opportunistic behavior, most people see others they can’t identify with as
risks. When such outsiders clearly
define themselves as such or are clearly definable and define themselves as outsiders through behavior, the
differences in identity can have clear-cut consequences along the lines of those
distinctions.
Again, this is why you can get low-discrimination groups even
with the same races, like the military, when the group is clearly identifiable,
cooperative behaviors are enforced, and membership requires clearly
communicated sacrifices to reinforce the collective sense of identity. In this case, the discount comes with the
sacrifice and membership and exceeds the differences in “race” or “ethnicity”
in most cases.
In general though, for African-Americans, joining the culture
at large often requires some level of sacrifice like joining the military. It requires sacrificing one form of identity
and membership in one group and adopting the identity cues and overt behavior
of another group along with whatever sacrifices, dues, or costly buy-ins to
join the group. Additionally, it often
means giving up the option of being overtly antagonistic to the “white”
cultures they seek to join—which often alienates other African-American people.
What’s the benefit though?
In many cases, there’s a difference in economic outcomes and
even political power between different identity groups. Because there’s a discount involved, these
groups tend to reward participation and compliance with group norms, rules, and
identity. Additionally, in economic
terms, some of these discounts can directly impact the children and families of
members, providing social connections that increase the opportunity for easier
entry by children in terms of apprenticeships, initial job offers, and other
sorts of advantages tied to preferences.
For an individual person making such a decision, there may
be only a few opportunities to do so and they have to make a decision based on
how much leaving one group and joining another may cost. For African-Americans living in a primarily
African-American neighborhood, “acting white” may have real costs in terms of
things like dating or marriage partners, security or hostility of neighbors,
and simply accessing the cultural discount based on race.
Why?
Because the outward behavioral and other cues are sending as
much a signal to other African-Americans as it is towards the group the person
desires membership in. Additionally,
when groups see numbers of members and associated qualities like “buying power”,
“poll numbers”, and others as critical sources of power and influence based on
racial/ethnic/religious group identity, aspiring to join other groups may be
seen as a direct threat.
We also see a hint of this in the protests surrounding
Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin where the behavior of these individuals was intentionally
ignored, rationalized, or considered in different manners to focus—instead—on their
simple, race-based identities.
Protecting the power of their stories based solely on identity and their
semi-legal status as “children” at the expense of their agency as human beings
and responsibility for their own actions as the same makes for a better chance
of using identity-based influence on people who share those identities.
How does the action of the police tie into this?
Police are one of those groups whose membership is tied to
overt sacrifice and behavioral restrictions and then accorded additional
responsibilities and privileges based on that identity. This sets them apart as an identity group as
well as creates an almost artificial set of behavioral norms. Add into the mixture the fact the behaviors
prescribed and proscribed by the law—in general—are more representative of the
culture at large or the average of the cultures/subcultures wielding the
greatest collective, political power over time than any particular
culture/subculture, and you have a recipe for varying degrees of conflict with
cultures/subcultures whose own rules and norms are at odds with that which
established the law.
In turn, it’s almost a guarantee for ongoing conflict
between any subculture resistant to adopting the norms and overt signs of the
culture/subculture establishing the laws and promoting enforcement. When some of the conflict comes down around
criminal behavior and/or violent behavior, risks increase someone’s going to
get killed in the process of law enforcement.
That’s what we see.
Black crime is sky-high.
The norms expected in black communities differ from the law, are at odds
with the enforcers, and enforcers are very unlikely to extend an in-group “discount”
to someone from a distinct other culture.
Part of the problem—and why other “obvious” culture/racial/ethnic groups
don’t share the same level of crime rates—is likely a greater tolerance and
acceptance in violent and/or related behaviors in African-American
culture.
Two obvious solutions present themselves in this case. The first is alteration of identity and/or
culture to match that being enforced. In
some areas, for some groups, this has worked.
The costs—as suggested above—may be one’s racial/cultural/ethnic
identity.
The second obvious solution is to alter the laws or enforcement
to match the local culture. To do so is
essentially to install self-policing within a population and to overcome
differences and resistance from other local subcultures as well as tolerate
whatever the effects of the changes are.
For example, the U.S.’s experiment with alcohol prohibition was something
along these lines. The consequences
turned out to be a higher crime rate and some groups being rewarded
economically from the ensuing inter-cultural conflict.
Likewise, the ongoing experiment with (de-)prohibition of
marijuana will be interesting to watch for what the effects of change will be,
especially the consequences and how state and local government resolves
conflict with the Federal level.
Either way, when it comes to the conflict between
African-Americans—as a self-identified subculture/culture—and the law enforcement
institutions at large, in addition to culture-specific behavioral issues, a key
issue is seeing the issue in black/white lines instead of intercultural
conflict. By tying the issue into the
concept of historical racism, it’s almost guaranteed to be unwinnable because there
is no middle ground. By making it costly—in
social terms—for African-Americans to join the “white” culture at large, both
of the obvious solutions are ruled out unless African-Americans are allowed to
redefine the culture at large to match their own.
To do so, they must contend with both an economic system tied
to discounts based on “white” culture and intercultural conflict with other
subcultures. Success—in this
circumstance—would generally require the adoption of “white” economic culture
or the risk of breaking the economic system and being forced to rebuild it
while having to deal with the resulting breakdowns of many economic and
governmental institutions and resistance from other groups invested in them.
Still, the history of slavery in the U.S. is something heavy
in the minds of many African-Americans and something not easy to ask many of
them to give up, even if the consequences might improve their lot in American
life and everyone else’s to boot.
