Following referrals and such, I noticed something about the reaction to Orlando Patterson's latest effort. Everyone, with only three exceptions I can find, ducked. And I'm one of the exceptions.
That op-ed fell into three parts. The first is an introduction that invoked the difference between authenticity and sincerity that listed putative problems he asserts are related when seen through that lens (though, it seems, at no other time). The second is an attack on Implicit Association Tests using the most strident, emotionally evocative language one can muster over a data gathering technique. The language Patterson used made it clear the problem is the conclusions points toward a personal component in racial bias that individuals can take responsibility for. The third section philosophically supports the "disparate impact" test for racism
Sincerity rests in reconciling our performance of tolerance with the people we become. And what it means for us today is that the best way of living in our diverse and contentiously free society is neither to obsess about the hidden depths of our prejudices nor to deny them, but to behave as if we had none.
...though that test has been specifically repudiated in court.
Finding part one to be empty and part three to be bullshit, my own response targeted part two. Anyone who read the thing can see the was the point of the op-ed. Every other response stopped as soon as the race issue was engaged. Everyone else talks about "authenticity vs sincerity" as though that were the point of the article. And so another encoded debate becomes current, and we find a new way to talk about things without saying a damn thing, another debate we can resolve without coming anywhere near the issues that raised the question.
Bah.
The list of exceptions to this lack of intestinal fortitude is short: MB Civic
“So maybe we’re all bigots. But we can still be civil.”
I’m not certain how much agree with Patterson’s premise; it sounds like he believes that it’s okay to be a bigot as long as you don’t act like one. But it is Psychology 101 that repressed, and suppressed, feelings will eventually come out, often in explosive ways.
and Dissecting Leftism at Men's News Daily
ORLANDO PATTERSON
Jamaican sociologist, Orlando Patterson, is often quoted because he has more moderate and realistic views on race and racism than is usual. And, as he is a black man, his views on that matter are not described as “racist” — which they would be if a white man had uttered them.
Patterson is far from a paragon of wisdom, however. His latest article starts out by completely ignoring the well-attested importance of IQ, for instance.
Now, I could actually stop there. He gives the reason Orlando Patterson is popular in his circle. And his statement about ignoring the importance of IQ reminds me of a story about a philosopher from Enlightenment days who explained the workings of the world in fully materialistic terms to his king. When the king asked, "But where is God in all your consideration?" he said, with a quizzical expression on his face, "But...I had no need of such an hypothesis." Nothing Patterson wrote, and nothing he wrote about, invoked IQ yet Dr. Ray (the blogger in question) found the op-ed incomplete without it. I think it would be interesting if he made explicit the meaning he would like covered by this new coded statement.
As I say, I could stop there but in honor of his honest presentation:
What he says in the article is that it does not matter whether people have racist attitudes in their minds as long as they treat everyone politely. It is a version of the “deeds, not words” dictum. I think he has a point but there is a hostile review of the article here. [P6: links to here...] I myself would say that the important thing is for each of us to treat all others as individuals as far as possible — because there is good and bad in all groups. I say more about that here.
An earlier article by Patterson is well worth reading, however. He does a pretty good job of demolishing the standard Leftist claims that black backwardness is due to “discrimination”, “poverty” etc.
I had issues with that earlier article. Wrote it up at the time. I'm giving some thought to whether or not there's a point to writing up the "more about that" bit. I may use it as the basis of a "consensus strawman" (which I define as that which no oe says but everyone thinks).
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
i wonder how much of this is
i wonder how much of this is due to patterson's status?
even though patterson actually isn't a methodologist, or even well versed in the use of statistical methodology--remember his critique of the poverty literature?--he is still a harvard professor. and black. are people projecting a certain level of expertise and liberal politics into his position?
as i think about it juan williams and orlando patterson have similar backgrounds, in that both hail from the west indies from what i recall. people with this background tend to be more conservative than blacks from the states.
in fact...i think patterson has some of the same issues dealing with women as williams has.Â
Conversely...
I'd argue that African Caribbeans from English-speaking countries who emigrate to the United States, Canada and the UK tend to be more conservative than those who remain in the country. Generally speaking, this is not a function of "ethnicity", but of class, as an migrant population will, of necessity, prioritize economic issues and deprioritize political issues. This tends to be the case, regardless of the diaspora group or the country of migration. Domestic political issues tend to be fought out between indigenous groups - and immigrants tend to side with domestic groups based on economics. To the extent that language, race (phenotype) or culture operate as economic barriers, groups choose accordingly. The degree of moralizing from folks like Juan Williams and others of Caribbean ascent is hard to square with the terpitude of Trench Town. Perhaps, for these folks, Trench Town and other poor towns where black folk routinely violate one another are really not part of the Caribbean, but geographically misplaced and legitimately a part of the South Bronx. Perhaps their inability to see this kinship of good and bad across borders is due to some psychological defect, and not at all attributable to their "status", but in fact, to their desire for "status" in the eyes of others.
are people projecting a
I'd say so. It's a lot like asking a movie star's position on global warming...the fact that you're known at all gives you a certain amount of authority in the minds of common folk.
Plus we've almost totally severed expertise from authority, to the point where someone you grant authority over you can simply declare a third party has expertise. That's a fancy way of restating the ancient problem of Black community leadership positions being assigned by folks having nothing to do with those communities.
And, as Dr. Ray states plainly, and as Roland Fryer's supporters made equally clear, that they are Black provides cover for folks. Intellectual cannon fodder.
The Social Realm
What he says in the article is that it does not matter whether people have racist attitudes in their minds as long as they treat everyone politely.
In the social realm, which arises out of necessity because of our ability to discriminate, civility and politeness are extremely important qualities. The fact that you may not want to socialize with your neighbor because he is black, Jewish, Catholic, boring, or hates the Red Sox is no reason to be rude to that person when encountering him in public spaces. In this sense being a racial bigot may carry no significant weight or long term consequences.
The problem occurs, for example, when you refuse or cause someone to refuse to employ your neighbor or rent him an apartment because he is black, Jewish or Catholic. These actions have very different public policy consequences than not wanting to have a cup of coffee with your neighbor. The degree of politeness shown by a racially bigoted employer toward an Asian job applicant means absolutely nothing if the reasons why the applicant is turned down for a job are based on the employer's antipathy toward the applicant's race. This behavior does have long term consequences both for the applicant and society.
Agreed,
"The problem occurs, for example, when you refuse or cause someone to refuse to employ your neighbor or rent him an apartment because he is black, Jewish or Catholic. These actions have very different public policy consequences than not wanting to have a cup of coffee with your neighbor."
I think that is correct. One is a market relationship and the other is not.
Technically, in terms of economics, aside from the effects of racial or other discrimination on individuals, permitting prejudice to play a role that distorts the market function in its entirety across the board, not merely in individual cases.
Technically, in terms of
Give him a corner and he gives you three...or, in this case, an example of the sort of argument that Black folks need to get comfortable making.