Resistance as Sacrifice: Toward an Ascetic Antiracism

Abstract

Often described as an outcome, inequality is better understood as a social process—a function of how institutions are structured and reproduced, and the ways people act and interact within them across time. Racialized inequality persists because it is enacted moment to moment, context to context—and it can be ended should those who currently perpetuate it commit themselves to playing a different role instead. This essay makes three core contributions. First, it highlights a disturbing parity between the people who are most rhetorically committed to ending racialized inequality and those who are most responsible for its persistence. Next, it explores the origin of this paradox—how it is that ostensibly antiracist intentions are transmuted into “benevolently racist” actions. Finally, it presents an alternative approach to mitigating racialized inequality, one that more effectively challenges the self‐oriented and extractive logics undergirding systemic racism, rather than expropriating blame to others, or else adopting introspective and psychologized approaches to fundamentally social problems, those sincerely committed to antiracism can take concrete steps in the real world—actions that require no legislation or coercion of naysayers, just a willingness to personally make sacrifices for the sake of racial justice.

The privileged liberal principle‐implementation gap: How the personal behavior of privileged liberals contributes to social inequality

“…In practice, for many privileged liberals, this may take the form of no action (as suggested by the current findings), symbolic action, or ineffectual action (e.g., actions targeting individuals vs. actions targeting structures or institutions). Consistent with a theoretical perspective that is focused on the outcomes or ends of powerful groups (rather than intentions; Jackman, 1994), the privileged liberal P‐I gap suggests a need to unpack rhetorical commitment to equality (i.e., symbolic actions; e.g., representational politics; al‐Gharbi, 2019), as compared to actions that have material or meaningful outcomes on societal or group inequality (concrete actions). Action that can lead to material or meaningful outcomes might be rooted in willingness of upper‐class individuals to make some personal sacrifices, letting less powerful working‐class communities lead or have sovereignty (e.g., respect; Glasford & Johnston, 2018), and support for policies that change structural patterns of inequality (e.g., democratizing powerful institutions; Wolff, 2012; reducing concentrations of wealth Piketty, 2020).…”

It’s All in the Definition: Color‐Blind Interpretations of School Diversity

“…Therefore, color-blind attitudes are thought to contribute to racial inequality by allowing people to ignore the perpetuation of racial discrimination and negating the need for systemic changes to address it (Bonilla-Silva 2017). There are two key assumptions implied in color-blind theory: (1) racial threat, such as increased minority rights or population size, activates color blindness because there is a need to protect white privilege (Smith and Mayorga-Gallo 2017), and (2) racial threat does so because color blindness is a tool that can justify racist practices and policies and relieve white Americans of responsibility for racial injustice (al-Gharbi 2019;Forman and Lewis 2015).…”

Rethinking online learning design to enhance the experiences of Indigenous higher education students

“…Online learning and the use of learning management systems (LMSs) are ubiquitous in higher education in Australia (Baik, Naylor, & Arkoudis, 2015). However, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, access to technology continues to be an issue that impacts on educational access and participation (Anthony & Keating, 2013;Rennie et al, 2016;Wilks, Wilson, & Kinnane, 2017). As learning in higher education is increasingly online, there has rightly been a focus on access to technology and connectivity as major factors necessary to the achievement of digital equity in educational contexts (Gibb, 2006;Radoll, 2010;Rennie et al, 2016).…”