Michael Brown and the Intercultural Conflict

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.