What do you think?
Rate this book
Tacit Racism
We need to talk about racism before it destroys our democracy. And that conversation needs to start with an acknowledgement that racism is coded into even the most ordinary interactions.
Every time we interact with another human being, we unconsciously draw on a set of expectations to guide us through the encounter. What many of us in the United States—especially white people—do not recognize is that centuries of institutional racism have inescapably molded those expectations. This leads us to act with implicit biases that can shape everything from how we greet our neighbors to whether we take a second look at a resume. This is tacit racism, and it is one of the most pernicious threats to our nation.
In Tacit Racism, Anne Warfield Rawls and Waverly Duck illustrate the many ways in which racism is coded into the everyday social expectations of Americans, in what they call Interaction Orders of Race. They argue that these interactions can produce racial inequality, whether the people involved are aware of it or not, and that by overlooking tacit racism in favor of the fiction of a “color-blind” nation, we are harming not only our society’s most disadvantaged—but endangering the society itself.
Ultimately, by exposing this legacy of racism in ordinary social interactions, Rawls and Duck hope to stop us from merely pretending we are a democratic society and show us how we can truly become one.
Every time we interact with another human being, we unconsciously draw on a set of expectations to guide us through the encounter. What many of us in the United States—especially white people—do not recognize is that centuries of institutional racism have inescapably molded those expectations. This leads us to act with implicit biases that can shape everything from how we greet our neighbors to whether we take a second look at a resume. This is tacit racism, and it is one of the most pernicious threats to our nation.
In Tacit Racism, Anne Warfield Rawls and Waverly Duck illustrate the many ways in which racism is coded into the everyday social expectations of Americans, in what they call Interaction Orders of Race. They argue that these interactions can produce racial inequality, whether the people involved are aware of it or not, and that by overlooking tacit racism in favor of the fiction of a “color-blind” nation, we are harming not only our society’s most disadvantaged—but endangering the society itself.
Ultimately, by exposing this legacy of racism in ordinary social interactions, Rawls and Duck hope to stop us from merely pretending we are a democratic society and show us how we can truly become one.
- GenresNonfictionRace
248 pages, Paperback
First published May 21, 2020
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 4, 2021
I have a lot to say so will just ramble on awhile about it as I process my thoughts....
First, I will say that I stumbled across this in my library's catalog (hadn't heard of it elsewhere) & read it in ebook format (only format available). I feel like, for me, this was not the right format. I need print books, especially when I'm reading non-fiction or work that is detailed or has footnotes & such. Ebook format feels awkward to me in these cases. I find it so much easier to flip back & forth in a hard copy when I want to look at notes, bibliography info, & more. (That is my own limitation & not the book's fault, I know.)
Re: format/style: I made the comment early on that this somehow felt like I was reading a dissertation (even though I don't think I've ever read a dissertation, lol) or something for academia. The terminology & phrasing make it sound like more of a sociological/race study that is being presented for university courses than a "regular" non-fiction book you'd find on your public library's "new releases" shelf. In that respect, it felt kind of unwieldy (for me) early on. Partway through the book, the tone changed somewhat & became more informal, almost conversational (though still as important). Throughout the book, there were references in parentheses to particular authors/studies, but I feel like that's a format for university papers & not necessarily a non-fiction book that's out there for general public consumption. (I'm not sure who the intended audience is. Students? Academics? Sociologists? Everyone?) When I finished the book & was reading through all the footnotes, bibliography, etc..., it seems as if one chapter had been previously published as an article; perhaps it was just plopped in wholesale? All of this to say that the overall style, tone, format, etc. seemed to vary quite a bit (which I found distracting in various ways), but perhaps that is my own limitation coming into play too. (More on that later.)
Ok, now on to the content: First, here's a look at the chapters...
Even though I've read a few race-related books, especially over the past few years, I continue to be a white, middle-aged woman trying to do better & be better. I continue to learn & this book had quite a few things I hadn't considered previously. Dr. Ibram X. Kendi's How to Be an Antiracist opened my eyes & thoughts; Tacit Racism further built on those ideas.
For example, chapter 1 gets into the divide between how whites & Blacks make small talk & how the background & approaches are so different (based on long histories of behaving that way) that there's often a complete mismatch in communication between the two; hence the chapter title referring to whites as "nosey" and Blacks as "rude". As a white person, I get that people often chat with others, asking questions like, "What do you do?" or "Where do you work?" or similar things. The authors posit that this is because whites are still acting out hierarchical ways of interacting. For whites, it's normal, polite conversation to do the ask/answer routine. Not doing so would be considered impolite in many circles.
Whereas many Black people take questions like that as an affront to privacy. Blacks are much more likely to wait on the other person to volunteer information &, therefore, generally don't use the ask/answer model in their interactions. Whites tend to gather background info/share a lot during these types of conversations, whereas Blacks tend to be more private overall & would rather focus on discussing the here & now. So, if you're at a work conference, discussing an upcoming speaker or seminar would be fine, but delving into people's work backgrounds or other information could be considered a rude affront. Asking such questions would be seen as a implication of doubt on the Black person's job/employment/abilities/etc.... Blacks being more taciturn (which they consider more polite, waiting for the other person to volunteer info) often is mistaken as being rude by whites, who tend to use a question/answer system of conversation. And vice versa. (I hope I'm doing justice to the book with my summary.)
Chapter 3, the one about clashing conceptions of honesty in the workplace were also very eye-opening to me (especially as I used to be an extreme type-A work personality in the office). The book's studies say that whites often will just do whatever their boss tells them to do (even if they feel overwhelmed, don't want to do it, etc...). They will either say ok & bitch about it later (to other coworkers or their families) & may or may not actually get it done, but generally speaking, whites just say yes to assignments. (Not always, of course.) This kind of behavior is kind-of an unspoken "way to behave in the office" that's never really articulated but that so many whites seem to follow as an unspoken role of how to behave. (I could totally identify with that part, actually. Because of it, I had burned out quite a bit by the time I stopped working full-time in order to raise my kids.) Whereas, Blacks generally find that kind of behavior disingenuous (honestly, it is, but I had never really viewed it that way) & makes them trust their white coworkers less. If a Black person feels that they can't take on the added project or workload, they say "no" to the boss. Whites then label the person an "uppity" &/or "lazy" Black who dares to say no, but the Black person feels like s/he is being honest & forthright, nothing more, nothing less. Again, these ways of interacting are automatic for most people. You don't think about how you respond in these situations, you just do. There's a racial divide in the responses & both sides are misunderstanding where the other is coming from.
Again, these are generalities based on various sociology studies & these are not how everyone reacts, just majorities of groups in various situations based on various studies throughout the years.
Another thing that is argued is that Blacks, in general, tend to be more democratic in their interactions/relationships with each other, whereas whites still tend toward older hierarchical models of behaviors. This is explained in many ways throughout the book & there are many references to this, especially in relation to W. E. B. Du Bois's idea of double consciousness (which Blacks have & whites tend not to have; this book hopes to encourage whites to develop a double consciousness).
And this is where I'll refer back to my comment on what I felt like was the "unevenness" of style/tone/writing in the book. I wonder if, since there are two authors, that each wrote or mainly contributed certain sections? And, if so, with the strong leaning toward a democratic/equal preference toward participation, both added their parts in individually while also remaining ok with the duality of the styles? In a way, that makes sense based on the content of the book. It's complete supposition on my part, but it did make me rethink my stance by the time I finished the work.
For me, this book was a huge thought exercise & gave me a lot to learn & ruminate on. It wasn't always the easiest to read, nor did I always agree with everything that was said, but I feel like my mind has been expanded & opened more. I have been given a lot of food for thought. I hope I can & will put some things I'm learning & still thinking about to use.
I may actually purchase a hard copy of the book so I can easily make notes & refer back to sections, as well as make use of the bibliography.
One thing referenced is an online self-test for "Implicit Association": https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit... (Select the "Race IAT".)
Definitely recommended for those who want to continue to learn about race differences & relations in the US.
First, I will say that I stumbled across this in my library's catalog (hadn't heard of it elsewhere) & read it in ebook format (only format available). I feel like, for me, this was not the right format. I need print books, especially when I'm reading non-fiction or work that is detailed or has footnotes & such. Ebook format feels awkward to me in these cases. I find it so much easier to flip back & forth in a hard copy when I want to look at notes, bibliography info, & more. (That is my own limitation & not the book's fault, I know.)
Re: format/style: I made the comment early on that this somehow felt like I was reading a dissertation (even though I don't think I've ever read a dissertation, lol) or something for academia. The terminology & phrasing make it sound like more of a sociological/race study that is being presented for university courses than a "regular" non-fiction book you'd find on your public library's "new releases" shelf. In that respect, it felt kind of unwieldy (for me) early on. Partway through the book, the tone changed somewhat & became more informal, almost conversational (though still as important). Throughout the book, there were references in parentheses to particular authors/studies, but I feel like that's a format for university papers & not necessarily a non-fiction book that's out there for general public consumption. (I'm not sure who the intended audience is. Students? Academics? Sociologists? Everyone?) When I finished the book & was reading through all the footnotes, bibliography, etc..., it seems as if one chapter had been previously published as an article; perhaps it was just plopped in wholesale? All of this to say that the overall style, tone, format, etc. seemed to vary quite a bit (which I found distracting in various ways), but perhaps that is my own limitation coming into play too. (More on that later.)
Ok, now on to the content: First, here's a look at the chapters...
Introduction: Racism Is a Clear and Present Danger
Chapter 1. “White People Are Nosey” and “Black People Are Rude”: Black and White Greetings and Introductory Talk
Chapter 2. “Fractured Reflections” of High-Status Black Men’s Presentations of Self: Non-Recognition of Identity as a Tacit Form of Institutional Racism
Chapter 3. Clashing Conceptions of Honesty: Black American “Honesty” in the White Workplace
Chapter 4. “A Man Is One Who Is Responsible for Others”: Achieving Black Masculinity in the Face of Institutionalized Stigma and Racism
Chapter 5. The White Self-Interested “Strong Man” Ideal vs. the Black Ideal of “Submissive Civility”: In a Black/White Police Encounter with Jason Turowetz
Chapter 6. “Do You Eat Cats and Dogs?”: Student Observations of Racism in Their Everyday Lives
Chapter 7. The Interaction Order of a Poor Black American Space: Creating Respect, Recognition, and Value in Response to Collective Punishment
Conclusion Digging out the Lies by Making the Ordinary Strange
Even though I've read a few race-related books, especially over the past few years, I continue to be a white, middle-aged woman trying to do better & be better. I continue to learn & this book had quite a few things I hadn't considered previously. Dr. Ibram X. Kendi's How to Be an Antiracist opened my eyes & thoughts; Tacit Racism further built on those ideas.
For example, chapter 1 gets into the divide between how whites & Blacks make small talk & how the background & approaches are so different (based on long histories of behaving that way) that there's often a complete mismatch in communication between the two; hence the chapter title referring to whites as "nosey" and Blacks as "rude". As a white person, I get that people often chat with others, asking questions like, "What do you do?" or "Where do you work?" or similar things. The authors posit that this is because whites are still acting out hierarchical ways of interacting. For whites, it's normal, polite conversation to do the ask/answer routine. Not doing so would be considered impolite in many circles.
Whereas many Black people take questions like that as an affront to privacy. Blacks are much more likely to wait on the other person to volunteer information &, therefore, generally don't use the ask/answer model in their interactions. Whites tend to gather background info/share a lot during these types of conversations, whereas Blacks tend to be more private overall & would rather focus on discussing the here & now. So, if you're at a work conference, discussing an upcoming speaker or seminar would be fine, but delving into people's work backgrounds or other information could be considered a rude affront. Asking such questions would be seen as a implication of doubt on the Black person's job/employment/abilities/etc.... Blacks being more taciturn (which they consider more polite, waiting for the other person to volunteer info) often is mistaken as being rude by whites, who tend to use a question/answer system of conversation. And vice versa. (I hope I'm doing justice to the book with my summary.)
Chapter 3, the one about clashing conceptions of honesty in the workplace were also very eye-opening to me (especially as I used to be an extreme type-A work personality in the office). The book's studies say that whites often will just do whatever their boss tells them to do (even if they feel overwhelmed, don't want to do it, etc...). They will either say ok & bitch about it later (to other coworkers or their families) & may or may not actually get it done, but generally speaking, whites just say yes to assignments. (Not always, of course.) This kind of behavior is kind-of an unspoken "way to behave in the office" that's never really articulated but that so many whites seem to follow as an unspoken role of how to behave. (I could totally identify with that part, actually. Because of it, I had burned out quite a bit by the time I stopped working full-time in order to raise my kids.) Whereas, Blacks generally find that kind of behavior disingenuous (honestly, it is, but I had never really viewed it that way) & makes them trust their white coworkers less. If a Black person feels that they can't take on the added project or workload, they say "no" to the boss. Whites then label the person an "uppity" &/or "lazy" Black who dares to say no, but the Black person feels like s/he is being honest & forthright, nothing more, nothing less. Again, these ways of interacting are automatic for most people. You don't think about how you respond in these situations, you just do. There's a racial divide in the responses & both sides are misunderstanding where the other is coming from.
Again, these are generalities based on various sociology studies & these are not how everyone reacts, just majorities of groups in various situations based on various studies throughout the years.
Another thing that is argued is that Blacks, in general, tend to be more democratic in their interactions/relationships with each other, whereas whites still tend toward older hierarchical models of behaviors. This is explained in many ways throughout the book & there are many references to this, especially in relation to W. E. B. Du Bois's idea of double consciousness (which Blacks have & whites tend not to have; this book hopes to encourage whites to develop a double consciousness).
And this is where I'll refer back to my comment on what I felt like was the "unevenness" of style/tone/writing in the book. I wonder if, since there are two authors, that each wrote or mainly contributed certain sections? And, if so, with the strong leaning toward a democratic/equal preference toward participation, both added their parts in individually while also remaining ok with the duality of the styles? In a way, that makes sense based on the content of the book. It's complete supposition on my part, but it did make me rethink my stance by the time I finished the work.
For me, this book was a huge thought exercise & gave me a lot to learn & ruminate on. It wasn't always the easiest to read, nor did I always agree with everything that was said, but I feel like my mind has been expanded & opened more. I have been given a lot of food for thought. I hope I can & will put some things I'm learning & still thinking about to use.
I may actually purchase a hard copy of the book so I can easily make notes & refer back to sections, as well as make use of the bibliography.
One thing referenced is an online self-test for "Implicit Association": https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit... (Select the "Race IAT".)
Definitely recommended for those who want to continue to learn about race differences & relations in the US.
Displaying 1 of 1 review