“Walk the Walk but Don't Talk the Talk: The Strategic Use of Color-Blind Ideology in an...

Walk the Walk but Don’t Talk the Talk: The Strategic Use of

Color-Blind Ideology in an Interracial Social Movement

Organization1

Angie Beeman2

In this study, I examine the strategies interracial organizations use in the twenty-first century, where color-

blind ideology dominates. Much theoretical work on racism examines how it has evolved during different his-

torical periods, but this work does not address how these changing forms of racism affect social movement

organizations, particularly those on the left. While the literature on color-blind ideology has examined how it

is expressed by African Americans and European Americans separately, my work investigates how color-

blind ideology operates when European Americans and people of color are working together in the same

organizational setting. Studies of social movements have examined how organizational culture affects strate-

gies but have neglected how external racist culture and color-blind ideology impacts organizational strate-

gies. Findings from 3 years of ethnographic data collected on an interracial social movement organization

and its corresponding coalition suggest that activists in interracial organizations use racism evasiveness stra-

tegically to maintain solidarity. I conceptualize racism evasiveness as the action resulting from color-blind

ideology within a larger system of racism. While activists perceive advantages to these strategies, there are

also long-term negative consequences. Without explicitly naming and addressing racism, progressive organi-

zations may be limited in their ability to challenge systemic racism.

KEY WORDS: racism; color-blind ideology; social movements; interracial; organizations; organiza-tional culture.

INTRODUCTION

Color-blind ideology, which developed as part of the backlash to the 1960sCivil Rights Movement (Brown et al. 2003; Carr 1997; Steinberg 1995) promotedthe idea that skin color should not matter. In contemporary society, this oftentranslates into the belief that racism no longer matters and those who continuallypoint racism out are troublemakers “playing the race card” (Feagin and O’Brien2003). Smith (1995) argues that this is the central dilemma in dealing with racismtoday. He asks, “How can one propose specific policies or programs to deal withwhat cannot be seen or what one refuses to see or acknowledge even when it isseen?” (Smith 1995:142). This is the context in which twenty-first-century socialmovement organizations must survive. Ironically, Hughey (2012) finds that white

1 The author wishes to thank Karen Cerulo, anonymous reviewers, Mary Bernstein, Noel Cazenave,Susan Chambre, Bandana Purkayastha, Stephen Steinberg, and Thomas Volscho for their insightfulcomments on earlier versions of this paper. I would especially like to thank members of the organiza-tion featured in this article. This research was supported by a research grant from the Society for theStudy of Social Problems.

2 Department of Anthropology & Sociology, Baruch College-CUNY, 55 Lexington Avenue at 24thStreet, Box B4/260, New York, New York 10010; e-mail: [email protected].

Sociological Forum, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2015

DOI: 10.1111/socf.12148

© 2015 Eastern Sociological Society

127

nationalist organizations are using this postracial rhetoric to their advantage byarguing that everyone, regardless of color, should have equal rights, including“whites.”3 For the white nationalist, organizing in a color-blind society means com-ing up with new ways to be taken seriously, because it is no longer appropriate toargue that people are inherently unequal. For progressive organizations, it meansfighting an ambiguous form of racism that many refuse to see or discuss. In the fol-lowing interview segments, I illustrate this contradiction for progressive movementsfirst with a “white” antiracist woman and second with an African Americanwoman, both of whom are members of the same organization.

Jen joined the Center for a Fair Economy4 (CFE) in 2000 after attending col-lege and working with nongovernmental organizations in Africa. She grew up inUnion City and wanted to change some of the racial inequalities she witnessed sinceshe was a young child. One of her earliest recollections with racial discriminationcame after her sixth-grade year in junior high. Jen noticed that she and other“white” students were separated from African American and Latino students andplaced into classes based on intelligence. She recalls feeling uncomfortable with theway students were tracked and how her friends, who were students of color, weretreated by teachers. That experience with racism, shaped her history of activism andthe reasons she became involved with CFE. She reflects on her privileged positionas a “white” person and how that might affect her relationships with people of colorin the organization. At the same time, she is unsure whether the organization shouldreflect on this or address racism explicitly as part of its agenda. She states, “I don’tthink that we have really talked about as a team strategy how we deal with that.”Her concern is that “talking about that stuff [racism] . . . can take a huge nosedive.”In fact, she concludes, “I’ve been surprised at how much antiracism work we getaccomplished by not having it be the primary thing that we’re trying to do” (per-sonal interview, November 16, 2005).

Jen embodied what Thompson (2001) called the principles of white antiracistculture. Yet, she was unsure of whether to bring that culture into the organization.Unlike “whites” in past studies, Jen does not take the usual position as “white” sav-ior or claim color capital by having “black” friends (Hughey 2012). She does notpersonally deny the existence of racism and in fact seems to have a sophisticatedunderstanding of structural racism and white privilege. However, in CFE, she sees aneed to downplay talk on racism for the sake of solidarity, because talking about itcould “take a huge nosedive.” While she and other activists in the organizationdownplay the significance of racism in their talk, they do take actions against racistpractices. Hence, activists strategically “walk the walk” but do not “talk the talk”on racism. Activists see themselves as “walking the walk” literally through marchesand rallies, but also through their reports, which address racism more explicitly. Intheir work on jobs they demand greater representation of women and people ofcolor. Union organizers in CFE also take steps to recruit women of color. However,this was not often a topic discussed at organizational meetings.

3 I problematize the concepts of “race,” “black,” and “white” and otherwise use the terms EuropeanAmerican and African American.

4 All names of organizations, cities, and participants have been disguised.

128 Beeman

Carol was a resident of Union City her whole life. She witnessed significantchanges to her community over the years. She talked about a highway developednear her neighborhood, which “nobody knew about until it was done.” She joinedCFE’s coalition, Community-Labor Alliance (CLA) because she wanted to have avoice in the changes affecting her neighborhood. Carol also shared her experienceswith racism at work. She explained the differences between what she called southernprejudice and northern prejudice. She stated, “Don’t grin in my face and act likeyou like me, but you’re prejudiced; you really don’t care for black people” as sherecounted various racist incidents, where her manager would consistently give herunfavorable work schedules in comparison to “white” coworkers. However, whenasked if CLA should address racism explicitly, she stated that the organization hadnothing to do with racism. When I pointed to examples where the organization didtalk about Elite U as having a plantation mentality and that its policies targetpeople of color, she engaged in thoughtful reflection on the question:

Yeah! . . . I guess you could say that they targeted the poorer areas. I never looked at it likethat. That you know it was a racial thing. I just know that [Elite U] moves in on . . . the poorareas. . . . I guess that is a racial thing, because [Elite U] hasn’t moved up in the [Westview]area. . . . Never thought of it like that. . . . That’s the truth I never thought of it like that.(Personal interview, May 15, 2006)

After a pause, I attempted to move on to the next question, but Carol againlisted off the neighborhoods that Elite U targeted, and asked, “Is it racism? . . . See,you made me really think on that one, because I never thought of it that way” (per-sonal interview, May 15, 2006).

Rodriquez Silva (2012) argues that racial oppression can be revealed whensilences are disrupted. By pointing out some of the racialized issues CLA deals with,I was inadvertently disrupting the silence for Carol and this made her question,seemingly for the first time, whether CLA was up against racial or class oppression.Carol recognized that her experiences at work had everything to do with racism andshe confronted her manager about the incidents. Yet, the analysis of racism sheapplied in her personal life was somehow transformed in her work with CLA to onethat was more class- than racism centered. In both CFE and CLA, people of colorwere in visible leadership roles from the start and they used color-blind languageand strategies just as much as their European American counterparts. Rather thanbeing destructive to interracial solidarity, members felt these strategies were neces-sary to maintain it.

To investigate these strategies, I draw on 3 years of fieldwork and interviewswith 25 members of an interracial organization and coalition, analyzing the ways inwhich they address racism in private and public settings. I find that EuropeanAmerican, Latino/a, and African American activists equally downplay the role ofracism internally, and while they recognize the significance of racism externally,they do not make it a central part of their campaign. The organization seems tohave adopted this strategy without any explicit discussion on it. I argue that thisracism evasiveness is influenced not only by internal organizational culture but alsoby dominant racial ideologies external to the group. In what follows, I will first dis-cuss concepts developed to explain racism in contemporary society and introducethe concept of racism evasiveness. As part of this discussion, I also examine how

Strategic Use of Color-Blind Ideology 129

color-blind ideology shapes public discourse leading to racism evasiveness. Second,I will address work on interracial groups and the effect organizational culture mayhave on the issues activists pursue and the manner in which they address thoseissues. Third, I will present my case study of CFE and its coalition CLA. Fourth, Iwill discuss my findings and analysis, presenting data from interviews, observationsof public meetings, rallies, press conferences, and community events. Finally, I willconclude with a discussion of the potential consequences of minimizing racism asan issue and avenues for future research.

COLOR-BLIND RACISM, IDEOLOGY, AND RACISM EVASIVENESS

The main problem with the term color-blind racism is that it conflates two sepa-rate concepts, the ideology of colorblindness and systemic racism of which it is itselfa part. Bonilla-Silva (2001:12), for example, argues that the term color-blind racismshould be used instead of ideology, because

this term fits better the actual language used by whites to defend their racial views . . . color-blind racism does what all ideologies do: It helps sustain relations of domination, in this case,the post-civil rights racial status quo.

Here, the terms racism and ideology are used interchangeably—”color-blindracism does what all ideologies do.” In his more recent work, Bonilla-Silva (2010:3,my italics) states:

Compared to Jim Crow racism, the ideology of color blindness seems like “racism lite.” Insteadof relying on name calling (niggers, Spics, Chinks), color-blind racism otherizes softly. . . .

It is not clear from the above statements how the ideology of colorblindness isdifferent from racism. In his theoretical work, Bonilla-Silva (1997) recognizes thatreducing racism to ideology is problematic. These concepts work together butexplain two separate issues. Some clarification is in order, then, if we are to under-stand how contemporary racism works.

There are at least three separate issues scholars attempt to address through theconcept of color-blind racism. First, there is systemic racism, which is a centuries-old and highly organized system of “race”-based oppression that operates at everylevel of society (Cazenave 2011; Feagin, Hernan, and Batur 2001). Second, there iscolor-blind ideology, which helps to hold that system in place. Color-blind ideologyrests on the seemingly positive belief that we should treat everyone the same, regard-less of skin color. In fact, we should not notice skin color at all. Third, there is rac-ism evasiveness, which is the negative consequence of that color-blind ideology.Refusing to see how color matters results in refusing to see or talk about racism.After all, if we do not see color, then there is nothing to talk about with regard to asystem of color- or “race”-based oppression. Thus, systemic racism is held togetherbecause there is a denial that it even exists and an avoidance of discussing it.

Cazenave (2011) criticizes racism blindness in U.S. society and in urban sociol-ogy as a field of study, but does not show how this concept results from color-blindideology. Pollock’s (2004) study of race talk in California high schools also chal-lenges the concept of color-blind racism. She argues that students and teachers did

130 Beeman

not subscribe to the notion that color does not matter, but they feared talking abouthow it mattered in public settings. Therefore, in public settings, they deliberatelyavoided “race words” or any description of people by their ethnicity, such as Afri-can American, Samoan, Chinese, and so forth. She describes this phenomenon ascolor muting. Pierce (2012) finds a similar phenomenon in her study of a law firmthat was sued in the 1970s for “egregious discrimination.” Because of the lawsuit,the firm worked hard to present itself as “excellent in diversity.” That public presen-tation silenced any discussion on racism, because the firm was supposed to be color-blind in its practices. Talking about racism, then, was seen as doing somethingwrong. That is precisely what Risman and Banerjee (2013) find in their study ofschoolchildren, who feel guilty for noticing racial inequality and talking about it.What all of these studies show is that color-blind ideology creates an environment,which confines racial discourse to uncritical conversations on “multiculturalism” or“diversity.” The larger ideology of colorblindness leads to racism evasiveness. Ironi-cally, Pollock (2004) notes how even she was affected by her respondents’ silenceson racism and at times would use color-muted language to describe racial issues.Many of the terms developed are confusing, because like our respondents, theseterms fail to name racism specifically.

Frankenberg (1993) argues that researchers use the term color-blind out of con-venience and this is problematic because it obscures complex political and socialdynamics (see also Dowd 2014). Yet her concept, color evasion, also does not cap-ture the central issue of racism and focuses again on color. Frankenberg’s discus-sion of power evasion is a better description of what actually happens in racialdiscourse today. Power evasiveness in racial discourse downplays “differences ofracial identity and their connections to positions of domination and subordination”(Frankenberg 1993:268). Here again, the focus is not directly on racism. Poweroperates on many levels and one can talk about power in a way that avoids racism.Power with regard to class is often more comfortably addressed than racial power.In fact, a student in my racial and ethnic relations class used an analysis of power todeny racism. She argued that it all came down to power; if you had money, you hadpower regardless of ethnicity. Thus, we need concepts that will adequately capturethe specific avoidance and denial of racism.

The term racism evasiveness focuses more directly on the problem. What peopleare ultimately avoiding when they say they do not see color, when they overlook dif-ferences in power, or avoid “race words” is racism. What I find in my work is not onlyan evasion of power or color muting. Activists are willing to discuss power openlywith regard to class and they do use “race words” to describe people as well as racialdisparities. What they avoid is making racism an explicit part of their campaign anddiscussions. Below, I will examine scholarship on how interracial movements navigateracism and the role that organizational culture also contributes to this silence.

RACISM AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Studies of interracial groups have focused on temporary coalitions betweentwo or more organizations involving people of color and/or European Americans


(Barvosa-Carter 2001; Bystydzienski and Schacht 2001; Lichterman 1995). How-ever, few have examined the dynamics of independent organizations that includeboth people of color and European Americans who are actively involved in thesame projects. There is a significant amount of research on the Civil Rights Move-ment (Delgado 1987; Marx and Useem 1971; McAdam 1982, 1988; Morris 1984;Polletta 1994, 2002; Thompson 2001), but my study is concerned with organizationsformed after the Civil Rights Movement, during a time when a different form ofracism emerged. Several studies have examined racism expressed by antiracist“whites” and how they use color-blind versus color-conscious strategies (Feaginand O’Brien 2003; Frankenberg 1993; Hughey 2012; Korgen and O’Brien 2006;O’Brien 2003; Thompson 2001), but most of these studies focus on intraracial orga-nizations, where European Americans work on unlearning and challenging racism.They also point to problematic relationships between antiracists, their non-antira-cist counterparts, and people of color. My study focuses instead on the strategiesactivists use to address racism within an interracial organization. This is not a studyof how activists relate to each other per se, but how they address racism as an orga-nization, the way they justify their strategies, as well as potential problems that mayarise from those strategies.

To date, very little research has been conducted specifically on how color-blindideology and racism evasiveness in contemporary society gets expressed in interra-cial social movement organizations. Ernst’s (2012) study of women in the WelfareRights Movement is one of the few to examine this issue directly. She finds thatEuropean American women engage in “cosmetic colorblindness,” a well-meaningattempt to make the organization look good by presenting it as more diverse than itis. By talking directly about racial statistics and diversity within their organizations,Ernst argues, European American women are able to avoid explicit discussions onracism. She also finds that women of color articulate intersectional views that recog-nize the simultaneous oppressions of racism and sexism more often than do Euro-pean American women, who focus more directly on gender. Furthermore, she findsthat few women of color use frames, which privilege class over racism.

Ernst’s (2012) work is similar to mine in that we are both concerned with thesame paradox—how organizations fight racism in a society where it is said to nolonger exist. However, my interviews included both men and women of differentracial/ethnic backgrounds. Cosmetic colorblindness was not an issue in the organi-zation I studied, because it was very racially diverse not only in terms of the mem-bership but also in terms of leadership. Also, my work looks at how activistsnavigate solidarity and how racism is addressed as an organization rather thanprimarily on how activists’ racial identities influence expressions of color-blind ide-ology. While Ernst does collect interviews from activists in a number of differentorganizations, her stated focus is on the frames activists use, not the organization.Thus, she does not examine, as I do, the role organizational culture plays in influ-encing racism evasiveness.

Johnston and Klandermans (1995:5) define culture as “characteristic of amovement’s environment that functions to channel or constrain its developmentand that defines what behaviors are legitimate and acceptable.” The culture of amovement organization can promote or restrain what conversations activists do/do

132 Beeman

not have or actions they do/do not take on racism. In his work on gay rights organi-zations, Lichterman (1999) found that the way activists talked about identities andcontroversial issues depended on organizational culture. He argued that organiza-tions with cultures of “personalized togetherness” valued individual contributionsover a shared allegiance to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender establish-ment. This type of organizational culture promoted what he called “multivalentidentity talk.” Such talk allowed for explicit, critical discussion of differences andmultiple identities among group members as well as controversial issues, such asracism, sexism, and homophobia. Over time, a core group of members became dis-satisfied with the focus on talk and wanted to engage in projects that involved stra-tegic political action. Thus, they created a coalition, which had an organizationalculture of “community interest politics” that focused on commonalities and aunified identity. This type of culture promoted “univalent talk,” which downplayeddifferences among the membership.

Based on Lichterman’s (1999) findings, I expect that organizational culture willaffect the way that CFE and CLA discuss racism. If the organization has a culturethat emphasizes common interests, it is likely to limit discussion of controversialissues and downplay differences in racial identities. However, I also argue that racistculture outside of the organization affects the decisions activists make. As Johnstonand Klandermans (1995) argue, movement culture is shaped by the culture of thehost society. Color-blind ideology is a central component of this culture. I will nowdescribe the organization, context of the study, and research methods.

RESEARCH SETTING

Center for a Fair Economy is a progressive, grassroots, interracial organizationlocated in a Northeastern city, which I call Union City and near a university that Icall Elite U. Elite U is a predominantly “white” institution and is connected to anumber of economic and political elites, in part through its alumni. These politicalconnections continue to grow, especially through its University Hospital. CFEfocuses on economic as well as racial issues. Its mission is to influence policies inand around working-class, minority, and immigrant communities most affected bysocial and economic inequality. The organization relies on grassroots strategies,such as marches, rallies, house, church, and backyard meetings. Activists regularlyrecruit members by going door to door and seek out community leaders who canfoster social networks in churches, labor unions, and civic organizations. CFE hasmore of a top-down structure with a clear board of directors than its coalition,CLA. Both CLA and CFE meetings are usually led by the founders of the organiza-tion, but occasionally CLA meetings are led by cochairs. Each of these cochairs rep-resents an issue from the community benefits agreement. Their job is to educate thecommunity about these issues and speak on them at public events, such as hearingsand rallies. They also represent CLA when they meet with Elite University Hospitaladministration.

When I joined CFE and CLA in 2004, members had recently completed a pro-ject on redlining and had developed a social contract that included the issues of


affordable housing, education, jobs, and health care. CLA was formed as a meansto get Elite U’s hospital to sign on to a community benefits agreement (CBA) withthe Valley. The Valley is a low-income, predominantly African American andLatino/a neighborhood that has been negatively affected by Elite U’s developmentpractices.

Center for a Fair Economy saw an opportunity for organizing the community,when Elite U announced plans to build a state-of-the-art cancer center right next tothe Valley. Organizers in CFE knew this would be a sore point with Valley residentsgiven Elite U’s long and problematic relationship with the community. Since the1920s and 1930s, Elite U acquired land that it was able to take off the city’s taxrolls, creating enormous wealth for the university. Elite U was also one of the firstinstitutions to support urban renewal in Union City. Urban renewal policies bene-fited Elite U by allowing them to purchase land that the city defined as slums. Theuniversity was also able to use its political connections to ensure that urban renewalworked in its favor. Mayors and other political elites connected to Elite U assistedthe university in receiving land taken from small businesses and poor residents inUnion City. Graduates of Elite U also sat on the city’s urban renewal committeeand wrote reports about the university’s needs, which assisted Elite U in acquiringland for their development.

Through urban renewal, Elite U accumulated much wealth off residentialareas, such as the Valley. Tax-exempt land owned by Elite U more than doubledfrom 1950 to 1990. However, the university’s staff members and residents of the sur-rounding neighborhood did not benefit from this wealth. The Valley remained anincreasingly impoverished neighborhood and staff members at the university contin-ued to make poverty wages, despite the university’s increasing wealth.

Members of the coalition, CLA, often argued that the schools and other insti-tutions University Hospital built did little to benefit Union City residents. Theschools were largely built in impoverished areas and offered poor-quality education,which residents felt contributed to school violence and high dropout rates. Whatalso concerned Union City residents was that these institutions did not create goodjobs for them and more than 60% of Elite U’s employees lived outside of the city.Furthermore, University Hospital’s development produced pollution, which CFEmembers often linked to the Valley’s high asthma rate in children. This pollutionwas exacerbated by the parking problems that had occurred in the Valley, becauseUniversity Hospital employees were forced to park along residential streets and infront of residents’ homes. This long history of Elite U and University Hospital’srelationship to Union City’s communities, such as the Valley informed the issuesdeveloped as part of the CBA. Those issues included good jobs, parking, affordablehousing, environment, and access to health care.

I chose CFE and CLA for four reasons. First, CFE was not a temporary coali-tion between two or more intraracial groups. It was an independent organizationthat was interracial from the start. In fact, the relationship between leaders Adrian-na Stone, a “white” woman from South Africa, and Michael Cross, an AfricanAmerican man, is credited by activists as the reason behind the strong interracialmembership. For many, Stone and Cross were an example of how to successfullybuild trust between African Americans and European Americans. Both leaders had

134 Beeman

a long history of civil rights activism and were able to draw on their resources tocreate an organization where European American members were as activelyengaged as African Americans and Latino/as.

Second, CFE and CLA formed during the so-called “post–civil rights era.”However, some of the key leaders and members were actively involved in the CivilRights Movement and often drew on the memories and words of Malcolm X andMartin Luther King Jr. during speeches at public meetings and rallies.

Third, CFE and CLA are unique in their diverse interracial, interfaith, and in-terclass membership. Such factors provided for a more nuanced investigation ofcolor-blind ideology and organizational strategies than has previously beenattempted.

Fourth, CFE and CLA clearly dealt with racist practices by their opponent.The history of urban renewal in Union City and elsewhere targeted people of color,as did discrimination in education, employment, and redlining. I was interested inhow the organization addressed these issues in a climate of postracial politics.

METHODS

I developed a case study of CFE and CLA through participant observation, in-depth interviews, media coverage, organizational materials, and reports during theyears 2004–2007. Because CLA formed from CFE and was the main focus of CFEduring the time of my study, I investigated both of these groups in tandem. Obser-vations of meetings and other organizational activities allowed me to assess the kindof organizational culture CFE and CLA had. Data from the observations revealedhow and if members discussed racism in public and private settings and providedinsight into how strategies were developed. Interview data allowed me to under-stand why members used different kinds of strategies and how they felt about dis-cussing racism within the organization. These data also enabled me to assess theextent to which the organization allowed for critical discussion of racial differencesand racism or if it focused on commonalities.

My observations guided my interviews, which lasted 2 hours on average. Dur-ing my participant observation, I found that activists consistently emphasized racialunity and rarely talked explicitly about racism. Therefore, I asked activists whyinterracial unity was emphasized during public meetings, whether they saw prob-lems with this emphasis, and whether the organization should explicitly address rac-ism as part of its agenda. I also asked activists about their personal experiences withracism or other forms of discrimination both within and outside of the organiza-tion. Furthermore, I asked how the organization managed to recruit a diverse mem-bership and whether projects became divided along racial lines.

After 2 months of participant observation, I began approaching members forinterviews. By this time I had identified the key leaders and active members of theorganization and developed rapport with a few of the members, who became mymain contacts. I conducted the first interviews with these contacts and active mem-bers. At the end of each interview, I asked participants if they could recommendother members for interviews until I reached most of the respondents


recommended. To ensure confidentiality, I disguised the names of the respondents,the organization, coalition, the organization’s opponent, local politicians, the city,and the neighborhoods within the city.

Table I shows the ethnicity and gender of the respondents. Of the 25 interviewsconducted, 5 were with African American women and 6 were with African Ameri-can men. One interviewee identified as a Jamaican woman. There were four Euro-pean American men, six European American women, two Latino men, and oneLatina woman in the sample. Eighteen were members of the CLA. Six of thesemembers held the position of “cochair” in CLA, four were also members of the Ser-vice Employees International Union, and three were members of a local neighbor-hood group that was predominantly “white.” Two other members were part of theSocialist Party in Union City and three respondents were community residents withno other title. Seven of the members interviewed were paid staff of CFE.

While the organization states that it has a membership of over 600 individuals,much of that membership is not regularly involved in organization meetings. Thismembership is tapped, when the organization is planning rallies or marches. Duringthe early meetings of CLA, 50–60 members were present at public meetings. As timewent on, 25–30 members were present. Although my interviews were initially withthese more visible and active members, their recommendations for potential inter-viewees allowed me to access other less visible members. I was able to observemembers who could not be reached for interviews during their speeches and meet-ings. I also had informal conversations with them before and after meetings.

Interviews were semistructured, transcribed verbatim, and conducted in acti-vists’ homes, local restaurants of the interviewee’s choosing, or at the CFE office.The format of the interviews allowed members to speak freely. Activists providedrich details about their personal lives and shared documents about the history ofCFE and CLA. I started the interviews with simple questions on how the activistsbecame involved with the organization and then led up to the more difficult ques-tions about racism, starting with personal experiences before addressing their viewsof the organization. Similar to what Pierce (2012) found in her study of law firmsand affirmative action, respondents answered questions easily until it came to rac-ism. Unlike Pierce’s experience, no one asked me to leave. Instead, they would takea breath, sit back, and offer a thoughtful response. At this point in the interview, afew respondents stated that they were now glad that I was disguising their names.Initially, they were puzzled that I had given them a form on confidentiality, becausethe organization had nothing to hide. This at least provides some assurance thatrespondents felt safe discussing racism with me.

Table I. Ethnicity and Gender of Respondents

Ethnicity Women Men Total

African American 5 6 11European American 6 4 10Latino/a 1 2 3Jamaican 1 0 1Total 13 12 25

136 Beeman

Many studies have considered the impact interviewer ethnicity has on respon-dents’ willingness to discuss racism (Royster 2003; Walsh 2007; Wellman 1993).Royster (2003:3) navigated the boundaries of “black” and “white” sometimes pre-senting herself as an “ordinary white” graduate student and other times as a “sisterstruggling to get a degree from Hopkins.” Like Royster, I am also racially ambigu-ous and my ethnicity often comes up for debate among people who think I belongto this or that racial group. I have been called a multitude of racial slurs and classi-fied a number of ways including “mulatto,” “indigenous,” Native American, Nepa-lese, Vietnamese, and most often Latina. When I visited stores in and around theresearch setting, folks would often speak to me in Spanish and were puzzled when Ianswered back in English. However, activists rarely questioned my ethnicity. Whatmost interested them was my accountability to the organization, an important fac-tor for acceptance (O’Brien 2003; Walsh 2007). I showed up for meetings, rallies,press conferences, went door to door, and participated in political walks. One activ-ist said that he would use me as an example to get other members to show upbecause I was there even in the later stages of my pregnancy.

The ease with which respondents spoke about their personal lives, experienceswith racism and other forms of discrimination, the length at which they spoke, andthe details they offered led me to believe that they were comfortable giving theirhonest assessment of the organization. Most respondents, regardless of their ethnic-ity, did not think the organization should address racism. It was not that AfricanAmericans told me a different story than European Americans, which would indi-cate that my ethnicity played a strong role. Of those who felt that the organizationshould address racism, one was Latino, one African American, and one EuropeanAmerican. In addition, what interviewees told me seemed to match what was said atpublic events, where I was largely invisible. Members did not address racism explic-itly in those settings.

The meetings were lively with many residents raising their hands to speak. Theywould often stand and hold up newspaper articles to make a point. Comments fromone member would spur comments from other members and many would call out“Amen” or “C’mon now” to express their agreement. Sometimes, the leader of theorganization, a pastor, would state “I feel like I’m in church!” I easily disappearedamid the excitement. The only time I participated was during smaller meetings,where I would volunteer for turnouts. I took copious field notes before and aftermeetings, jotting down important references, quotes, and situations. It was fairlyeasy to take notes during meetings, because many of the residents would jot downnotes or read. I would also record my thoughts and quotes from the meetings onmy drive home immediately after the meetings. I recorded other public events, suchas rallies, press conferences, and aldermanic hearings and compared what happenedto what was reported in news coverage.

I collected 282 single-spaced pages of field notes on public events alone, codingfor words or discussions related to “race,” racism, diversity, and racial disparities. Ipaid close attention to when, how, and why racism was discussed or not discussedand noted any conversations related to inequality. I was also interested in the meta-phors activists used to discuss their work on oppression (Shapiro 2002). Activistssometimes made reference to slavery and “plantation mentality” when talking


about Elite U. In fact, it was these early references that showed activists had anawareness of racism yet at the same time attempted to downplay racial differences.This is what prompted me to develop interview questions about the organization’sexplicit focus on racism.

ANALYSIS

Organizational Culture and Discussions of Racism

I found that both CFE and CLA had what Lichterman (1999) called culturesof community interest politics, which valued action over talk. Members of CLA didfreely express differing viewpoints on strategies and tactics and sometimes engagedin role-plays on recruitment, but meetings usually followed a clear agenda and con-versations around differences in racial identities or the issue of racism were rare.When members diverted from the issues on the agenda, they were usually directedby the person leading the meeting back to the topic at hand.

The word racism was used two separate times during meetings. Both times itwas mentioned briefly as an external issue—not something to be discussed at lengthinternally and was framed to show the significance of unity around a particularissue. For example, one of the tactics Elite U used to divide CLA was to portray thegroup as a front for the union. Michael responded to this during an organizationalmeeting. He stated, “What’s the union about? Making sure people get treated righton the job? Making sure they get respected? And the place where . . . the greatestamount of injustice and racism plays out is generally on the job where the boss haspower” (observation of public meeting, April 13, 2005). Michael then went on totalk about the week’s upcoming rally. The other time racism was mentioned was indescribing a movement by students around the country regarding access to highereducation. Elite U students who supported CLA were involved in the movement.Leaders of CFE encouraged CLA members to become involved and help the stu-dents with the march.

Typically, in public settings, such as rallies, press conferences, and communityevents, differences in racial identities were intentionally downplayed and onlybrought up to show how racially unified the organization was. For example, duringa demonstration and press conference held in front of University Hospital, a mem-ber stated, “For 50 years this hospital has been using a dictatorship form of con-ducting themselves for this community and this community has been rising united,white, African American, and Latino” (observation of community event, March 17,2005). During a meeting to prepare for a televised holiday event where CLA wouldreveal its demands, a member stated, “It will . . . show that we are diverse. We arediverse. This is not the Latino or the African American. Everyone is includedbecause this is city-wide” (observation of CLA meeting, November 10, 2004). Thisis in line with what Bernstein (1997) calls identity deployment, which occurs whenorganizations strategically celebrate or suppress differences in identities to achievegoals.

Differences in racial identities were also not often discussed in private settings.However, racial disparities were brought up more explicitly in private venues, such

138 Beeman

as in issue reports found on CFE’s website. These reports included a discussion ofracial disparities in health care, education, and employment. The organization alsohad a researcher from one of the local unions present statistics at a CLA meetingfocused on the construction of the cancer center. The researcher, who was a Euro-pean American man, discussed the higher rates of cancer among African Americansand Latino/as and lower rates of insurance. He stated:

There’s a two-tier system, and some people are going to be saved and others are going to besacrificed, because they cannot afford the care that they really need. . . . Who’s going to getaccess to all the cancer care? . . . Is everybody going to get it, especially the people in our com-munity? (Observation of CLA meeting, June 22, 2005)

In line with the culture of the organization, the conversation moved to theactions they would take to get the community involved and win the CBA.

In more private settings, outside of any organizational meeting and duringinformal conversations, activists did discuss racism. Fred, an African Americanman, teaches about racism and spoke with me at length about his views on Freder-ick Douglass, Cornell West, and why people are afraid to talk about racism. WhenI went door to door with Fred to recruit members, he talked about racism on thejob. He stated, “No offense to Angie, but we know if we all went out for jobs, she’dget the job before any of us would get a job.” An African American woman added,“Well, yeah, because of the color of your skin.” To this, the resident they were try-ing to recruit stated, “But I would be the last to get a job out of all of us because Iwasn’t born in America.”

In other conversations outside of the organizational setting, Laverne, an Afri-can American woman, expressed her frustration over the Sojourner Truth Societyawards. She stated, “Can you believe it was all men up there?” She shared this withtwo European American women in CFE, whom she invited to the ceremony, whichwas a function separate from CFE or CLA. This is not only an issue of gender andsexism, but also racism. Interviews revealed that some members were involved ingroups unrelated to CFE or CLA that addressed racism, power, and privilegeexplicitly. This lends evidence to the impact organizational culture has in affectingwhat activists discuss. As Pollock (2004) found, sometimes the culture of an organi-zation can be so profound that it even affects outsiders. She noted that when an out-side speaker came to her schools, he tempered his emphasis on racial differences inresponse to an uncomfortable silence from the audience.

However, it was not only organizational culture at play here, but also color-blind ideology that silenced racism. Rodriquez Silva (2012) contends that silence isnot a total absence of discussion, but is manifest in attempts to shape or preventtalk. CFE and CLA referenced a plantation mentality, slavery, and even racismhere and there, but never named racism as part of their campaign against Elite U.This kind of silencing creates the impression that they do address racism withoutactually having to address it explicitly. Ultimately, when these references are madein public settings, the speaker quickly moves on to other issues or subtly movesback to economics as the key issue. In what follows, I will discuss activists’ perspec-tives on whether the organization does and should address racism and how thisillustrates the influence of color-blind ideology.


Racism Evasiveness: Walk the Walk but Don’t Talk the Talk

I find two levels of racism evasiveness expressed by activists. One kind occursinternally through an avoidance of explicit discussion on racism; the other is direc-ted externally when activists downplay racism as an explicit part of their campaignagainst University Hospital. The latter is part of a political strategy the organiza-tion utilizes to maintain legitimacy within the bounds of a color-blind society. Theformer has to do with internal dynamics and a fear that addressing racism will frac-ture the group.

With regard to the external strategy, activists felt they could address racismsilently. For example, Laverne, an African American woman CFE organizer,argued, “There’s a way that you can bring that [racism] out without actually say-ing. . . . Everything will speak for itself. It will eventually come to the forefront”(personal interview, August 5, 2005). She felt that using the word racism or address-ing it explicitly in public settings would appear unprofessional. Phillip, a EuropeanAmerican CLA member, shared Laverne’s perspective. He stated:

You know I think that the [CLA], I think that the [CFE ] does address that [racism]. . . . Youknow we live in a city here that’s 60% African American and Latino . . . disproportionatelymembers of those communities are poor. . . . I think [CFE ] makes the point without . . . usingthe labels. (Personal interview, June 1, 2006)

Likewise, Dawn, an African American cochair in CLA, stated, “If we start toaddress the racist, then that’s only going to draw negative attention to our group,which we don’t need” (personal interview, May 24, 2007). Why would addressing“the racist” or naming Elite U’s practices as racist draw negative attention to thegroup? The answer has to do with the impact of color-blind ideology on the organi-zation. In this context, talking about racism is viewed negatively because to do so isto recognize color, which by itself is seen as racist (Smith 1995). To deal with racismin this color-blind environment, activists in CFE and CLA used racism-evasivestrategies by subsuming racism under less controversial class issues and avoidinginternal discussions, which they feared would be divisive.

People of color, in particular, feared divisions between Latino/as and AfricanAmericans, while European Americans emphasized success in overcoming thosedivisions. The main success story told by European Americans concerned the strikeof 2003 after Latino/a temporary workers marched across a largely African Ameri-can picket line directed at Elite U. Due to CFE’s organizing, 13 of those temporaryworkers quit their jobs a few weeks into the strike and joined African Americans.However, people of color in the organization did not feel those divisions were set-tled. One issue had to do with different job outcomes. African Americans facedproblems in getting promoted while Latino/as had problems getting any job at all.Miguel, one of the few activists who discussed racism within the organization, alsoargued that Latino/as “have this mentality of . . . what the hell are they [AfricanAmericans] so angry about? . . . You don’t see us [Latino/as] asking for retributionor whatever the hell they’re asking for” (personal interview, May 17, 2006). For thisand other reasons, Travis, an African American activist, concluded that it would bedangerous to address racism internally:

140 Beeman

For instance, to have an African American try to help a Hispanic with a racist situation thathe’s dealing with or understanding how his racism is affecting his attitude toward the organiza-tion itself or different members in the organization [pauses] it is something we really have nevertalked about. . . . Should we? I want to say yes, but until . . . we have a stronger connection toeach other, I don’t think we should . . . because we’re not cohesive enough as a group yet todeal with that very touchy situation, and I think some of us really fear that would separate thegroup. (Personal interview, December 15, 2005)

In addition to these racial tensions, Miguel pointed to potential divisionsamong people of color and European Americans:

You still have to calm some of the . . . people . . . down and tell them to take it easy . . . don’trip the movement apart just because you see an unjust thing. We noticed that Anglos have away of doing things, being so conniving. . . . They are not in the fight, in the trenches. But if thepublicity is there and the newspapers are there . . . they’ll show up and the colored people hatethat. . . . We do deal with that. We don’t talk about it, because if you talk about it and you sayracism and all that, then you can jeopardize the whole movement. (Personal interview, May17, 2006)

There is a fear, then, not just of addressing racism externally, by naming EliteU’s practices as racist, but also of naming and discussing potential racism amongactivists in the organization. The result, as expressed by CFE and CLA members,would be a divided movement.

Activists justified these racism-evasive strategies by emphasizing action overtalk. In their view, because they “walked the walk” they did not need to “talk thetalk” on racism. For example, Zane, an African American CFE organizer, argued,“What we project as an organization and the way that our organization looks, auto-matically says it for itself” (personal interview, June 2, 2006). Fletcher, a EuropeanAmerican pastor and member of CLA, was one of the few members who thoughtthe organization should address racism explicitly. Yet, in his response, he volunteersthat the main way the organization addresses racism is “mostly in economic terms”(personal interview, May 15, 2007). Fletcher assumes that because the communityinvolved in CLA and CFE is predominantly African American and Latino/a, theyare naturally projects that fight racial injustice. Hence, working on projects that dis-proportionately affect people of color is understood as walking the walk on racismand given as a reason for why the organization did not need to discuss it. We seethis also in Phillip’s comments above. This perspective and class-centered focus wasalso shared by people of color (see Table II).

The fear and hesitancy of discussing racism within the organization was notonly influenced by organizational culture, but also by color-blind ideology in largersociety. Many of the issues CFE and CLA deal with concern racist practices, but

Table II. Answers to Racism Question

Respondents by Ethnicity Yes No Not Sure Total

African American 2 8 1 11European American 2 7 1 10Latino/a 1 2 0 3Jamaican 0 1 0 1Total 5 18 2 25


the organization is operating within a society where discussing racism is taboo. Fur-thermore, European Americans often fear explicitly discussing racism, because itwould force them to contend with their own racist sentiments and upset their sincerefictions or notions that they are good people and therefore cannot be racist (Feagin,Hernan, and Batur 2001). It would also mean taking responsibility for their role inperpetuating racism (Rodriquez Silva 2012). In addition, European American anti-racists may act paternalistically toward people of color or feel entitled and expectpeople of color to do much of the work in teaching them about oppression (Hughey2012; O’Brien 2003; Thompson 2001). Interestingly, the antiracist organizationTraining for Change stresses that European Americans talk too much about racismbut do not take action (Shapiro 2002). Perhaps, CFE and CLA avoided discussionson racism to prevent these problems. As Jen stated, talking about racism “can getso muddled so fast” and the group could get a lot accomplished without makingracism a central issue (personal interview, November 16, 2005). While activists per-ceived these racism-evasive strategies as necessary to success, there may be long-term negative consequences to these decisions.

Consequences of Racism Evasiveness

Table III illustrates some of the perceived advantages of racism-evasive versusracism-centered approaches as well as their potential disadvantages. For the mostpart, activists felt that racism-evasive approaches were more efficient and allowedthe organization to present a unified front to their opponents. Activists alsoassumed that not talking about racism would allow them to maintain interracialsolidarity. However, one of the disadvantages to this approach is that it can causethe internal conflict that members are trying to avoid.

Respondents from CFE and CLA shared their concerns about persisting ten-sions between African Americans, Latinos/as, and European Americans as well asbetween European American women and men of color. Because racism-centeredtalks about these tensions were not valued in the organization or coalition, they didnot have a stated plan on how to deal with complaints of racism. The few memberswho did share complaints were dissatisfied with how they were handled. In the longterm, a lack of racism-centered discussion could result in loss of membership. Rac-ism-evasive strategies could also limit the goals CFE and CLA can pursue. Rachel,a European American woman and member of CLA, stated that the rigid structureof CFE “does not allow people to become critical thinkers” and she felt this was

Table III. Advantages and Disadvantages to Racism-evasive vs. Racism-centered Approaches

Type of Approach Advantages Disadvantages

Racism Evasive Efficient, promotes solidarity,unified front

Unprepared to deal with complaints of racism,limits goals, internal conflict, less able toconfront racist practices of opponent

Racism Centered Retention and expansion ofmembership, increased trust,greater justice

Time consuming, members fear divisions

142 Beeman

important for residents “so that they can sit in a meeting with people like [Ben Patt-erson, spokesperson for University Hospital] and challenge what he says” (personalinterview, June 15, 2006). Similarly, another member of CLA stated that by nothaving what he called “taboo conversations” on racism, CFE was underestimatingpeople in the community. He stated:

They do too much over strategizing, over thinking at [CFE]. You know, it’s almost like, “Wewant to ruffle the feathers, but we only want to ruffle them to a certain point.” No! Let’s rufflethe feathers until that chicken is bald, naked. (Personal interview, June 13, 2007)

Racism evasiveness may also limit the ability of the organization to achieve itsgoals and challenge its opponents. Elite U has a long history of racist practices,which helped to create the present racial disparities in Union City. It is not a coinci-dence that the Valley, a largely poor, African American and Latino/a neighbor-hood, was most often affected by Elite U’s development. Some of the members werestruggling to understand this intersection between class and racism in the work ofthe organization. As it stood, there was little space in CFE and CLA for that kindof critical thinking. To engage in those discussions, at least two members partici-pated in groups outside of the organization, but not all members interested in hav-ing such discussions had access to those groups. In many ways, racism-evasivestrategies take racism off the table as an issue to be explicitly addressed internally orexternally.

As seen in Table III, racism-centered approaches have their own limitations,but they can also help organizations to avoid some of the disadvantages of racism-evasive approaches. For one, because racism-centered approaches move racism outof the secondary position and put them up front with other forms of oppression,they work to create greater justice. What’s more, taking a racism-centered approachto external issues could help to expand the goals and issues the organizationaddresses and this could increase membership as well as increase trust and bring inmore allies. Clawson (2003) recognizes this potential in his vision of a fusion modelthat merges the labor movement with antiracism and other movements. While headmits this model may cause internal conflict initially, it can also lead to greaterexpansion of movements.

Below, I will briefly address some of these issues in relation to the recentOccupy Movement. Before doing so, I will discuss the unique problems those wish-ing to study color-blind ideology face as well as limitations and implications of thestudy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Scholars of color-blind ideology face a unique challenge, because they areinvestigating the seeming absence of a phenomenon rather than the presence of it.As Bonilla-Silva (2010:53) argues, because the “language of color blindness is slip-pery, apparently contradictory, and often subtle . . . analysts must excavate the rhe-torical maze of confusing, apparently ambivalent answers.” To my advantage, Istudied people working together on the same projects in the same organization. Thisgave me some direction and control in analyzing any contradictions in what


respondents said. Triangulating data from participant observation, in-depth inter-views, and examination of media coverage, organizational materials, and so forth,allowed me to compare what I observed to what respondents volunteered ininterviews.

While these methods had advantages, my work was based on a case study ofone organization and coalition in a particular region of the United States. There-fore, as with most ethnographies and case studies, there are questions of externalvalidity. However, color-blind ideology is pervasive and greatly impacts how U.S.citizens think and talk about racism, so there is reason to assume that this ideologywill impact all progressive, social movement organizations. Also, a comparison tostudies like mine shows interesting similarities. Ernst (2012) found that womenwithin welfare rights organizations downplayed racism much like the respondentsin my study. A key difference between our studies was that I found that most peopleof color also engaged in racism evasiveness.

These findings have both theoretical and practical implications for studies ofracial ideology and progressive movements. First, the term color-blind racism isproblematic, because it combines a number of different components—racism, color-blind ideology, and racism evasiveness—which should be analyzed as separate butinterrelated concepts. I suggest that colorblindness as an ideology promotes a cer-tain racial worldview and political climate that leads to racism evasiveness. This rac-ism evasiveness is what scholars are finding when their respondents argue that “thepast is the past” (Bonilla-Silva 2001) or explain protests as “black unruliness”(Frankenberg 1993). These responses have typically been referred to as color-blindracism, color evasion, or power evasion. However, what is really being evaded is aspecific form of racial power and racism.

Obama’s recent Brother’s Keeper program is an example of racism evasivenessin action. It recognizes racial inequality but offers self-help and mentorship as keysolutions. That analysis of the problem obscures racism as a central cause ofinequality. However, in a society draped in color-blind ideology, the racism-evasivepolicies of Brother’s Keeper are sellable. My study shows that color-blind ideologypermeates movements on the left that engage in racism evasiveness. They do thisnot as a means of denying racism, but as a means of political survival. This speaksto the power of color-blind ideology in keeping the system of racism intact. As mystudy shows, it is more than just white nationalists who co-opt color-blind languageor liberal antiracists who engage in paternalistic color-blind ideology that contrib-ute to the problem. Radical leftist European Americans and people of color who donot engage in the usual tropes of color-blind ideology and are conscious of how rac-ism works can also participate in the same racism evasiveness, which maintains theracial status quo. Social movement theory should pay greater attention to theimpact external racist culture and ideology, not organizational culture alone, has onactivist’s decisions regarding movement strategies, particularly in leftistorganizations.

While activists view racism evasiveness as necessary to solidarity, there maybe negative consequences of this strategy. Like Ernst (2012), I found that someactivists were unhappy with the organization’s racism-evasive perspective and oneof the members left the organization because of it. These members may be in the

144 Beeman

minority for now, but not discussing racism internally may prevent the organiza-tion from dealing with complaints of racism when they arise. Also, if members areonly communicating problems through a class analysis, how are they to justifytheir demands for greater representation of people of color on the job, in access tohealth care, and education, all racialized issues? Some antiracist training programsstress common language and analysis of structural racism for successful commu-nity organizing (Shapiro 2002). Having that common language in CFE and CLAis important, because members noted different understandings of racism. Giventhese varied understandings, CFE and CLA could benefit from discussing howracism figures into their work. Without such discussions, will they know exactlywhat the racial injustice component of their struggle means and how they want tocombat it?

Some of these same issues were raised in the Occupy Movement, especially withthe development of Occupy Wall Street’s Declaration of the Occupation of NewYork City, where disagreement occurred over the use of color-bind language(Beeman 2012; McCleave Maharawal 2011). The Decolonize Movement also devel-oped in response to what some members considered racially insensitive language inthe Occupy Movement, starting with the very name of the movement. Rather thanoccupying the world, activists argued, they should be decolonizing it. The tensionsthat arose in the Occupy Movement and the development of the Decolonize Move-ment supports what I argue here, which is that emphasizing “we are all in thistogether,” while well intentioned, can actually promote exclusiveness rather thaninclusiveness.

Future studies could also address whether a similar culture of sexism eva-siveness affects strategies and talk in organizations. While sexism was not thecentral focus of my study, women in the organization and coalition did discussexperiences with sexism and indicated that the groups should do a better jobaddressing issues that affect women. Placing gender and racial oppression explic-itly rather than implicitly at the center of the organization’s agenda along withclass oppression may better enable any group to dismantle larger systems ofoppression.

Members in CFE and CLA seemed to believe that there was a dichotomousdistinction between organizations, which talk about racism and those that act on it.Their pragmatic avoidance of talk is understandable, given the failure of manyorganizations to translate talk into action and the problems that may arise fromcalling out racist situations (Feagin and O’Brien 2003; Hughey 2012; Lichterman1999; O’Brien 2003; Rodriquez Silva 2012). However, for CFE and CLA, the solu-tion to the problems with talk is to throw it out entirely and instead focus on show-ing up to meetings, rallies, and marches. This is how activists prove theircommitment to the movement, but as Feagin and O’Brien (2003) argue, both antira-cist thought and action are important. Progressive organizations must achieve a bal-ance between talk and action, without relying on racism evasiveness. Futureresearch should address movements such as Occupy, Decolonize, and other organi-zations struggling to develop models that allow activists to reach this balancebetween walking the walk and talking the talk on racism.


REFERENCES

Barvosa-Carter, Edwina. 2001. “Multiple Identity and Coalition Building: How Identity DifferencesWithin Us Enable Radical Alliances Among Us.” In Jill M. Bystsdzienski and Steven P. Schacht(eds.), Forging Radical Alliances Across Difference: Coalition Politics for a New Millennium: pp. 21–34.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Beeman, Angie. 2012. “Post-Civil Rights Racism and OWS: Dealing With Color-Blind Ideology.” Social-ism and Democracy 26: 2: 51–54.

Bystydzienski, Jill M., and Steven P. Schacht (eds.). 2001. Forging Radical Alliances Across Difference:Coalition Politics for the New Millennium. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bernstein, Mary. 1997. “Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Uses of Identity by the Lesbian andGay Movement.” American Journal of Sociology 103: 3: 531–565.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation.” AmericanSociological Review 62: 3: 465–480.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy & Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO:Lynne Rienner.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2010. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of RacialInequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Brown, Michael K., Martin Carnoy, Elliot Currie, Troy Duster, David B. Oppenheimer, Marjorie M.Shultz, and David Wellman. 2003. White-Washing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Carr, Leslie. 1997. “Color-Blind” Racism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Cazenave, Noel A. 2011. The Urban Racial State: Managing Race Relations in American Cities. Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Clawson, Dan. 2003. The Next Upsurge: Labor and the New Social Movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.Delgado, Gary. 1987. Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of Acorn. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.Dowd, Jeffrey. 2014. “Public and Academic Questions on Race: The Problem With Racial Controver-

sies.” Sociological Forum 29: 2: 496–502.Ernst, Rose. 2012. The Price of Progressive Politics: The Welfare Rights Movement in an Era of

Color-Blind Racism. New York: New York University Press.Feagin, Joe. R., Vera Hernan, and Pinar Batur. 2001.White Racism: The Basics. New York: Routledge.Feagin, Joe R. and Eileen O’Brien. 2003. White Men on Race: Power, Privilege, and the Shaping of

Cultural Consciousness. Boston, MA: Beacon.Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneap-

olis: University of Minnesota Press.Hughey, Matthew. 2012. White Bound: Nationalists, Antiracists, and the Shared Meanings of Race.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Johnston, Hank and Bert Klandermans (eds.). 1995. Social Movements and Culture. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.Korgen, Kathleen and Eileen O’Brien. 2006. “Black/White Friendships in a Color-Blind Society.” In

David L. Brunsma (ed.), Mixed Messages: Multiracial Identities in the “Color-Blind” Era: pp. 253–270. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Lichterman, Paul. 1995. “Piecing Together Multicultural Community: Cultural Differences in Commu-nity Building Among Grass-Roots Environmentalists.” Social Problems 42: 4: 513–534.

Lichterman, Paul. 1999. “Talking Identity in the Public Sphere: Broad Visions and Small Spaces in Sex-ual Identity Politics.” Theory and Society 28: 1: 101–141.

Marx, Gary T. and Michael Useem. 1971. “Majority Involvement in Minority Movements: Civil Rights,Abolition, Untouchability.” Journal of Social Issues 27: 1: 81–104.

McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, Doug. 1988. Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press.McCleave Maharawal, Manissa. 2011. “So Real, It Hurts: Notes on Occupy Wall Street.” Racialicious.

Retrieved October 8, 2011 (http://www.racialicious.com/2011/10/03/so-real-it-hurts-notes-on-occupy-wall-street/)

Morris, Aldon D. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing forChange. New York: The Free Press.

146 Beeman

O’Brien, Eileen. 2003. “The Political Is Personal: The Influence of White Supremacy on White Antira-cists’ Personal Relationships.” In Ashley W. Doane and Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (eds.), White Out: TheContinuing Significance of Racism: pp. 253–270. New York: Routledge.

Pierce, Jennifer. 2012. Racing for Innocence Whiteness, Gender, and the Backlash Against AffirmativeAction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Polletta, Francesca. 1994. “Strategy and Identity in 1960s Black Protest.” Research in Social Movements,Conflicts and Change 17: 85–114.

Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom Is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pollock, Mica. 2004. Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Risman, Barbara J. and Pallavi Banerjee. 2013. “Kids Talking About Race: Tween-agers in a Post-CivilRights Era.” Sociological Forum 28: 2: 213–235.

Rodriquez Silva Illeana M. 2012. Silencing Race: Disentangling Blackness, Colonialism, and NationalIdentities in Puerto Rico. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Royster, Dierdre. 2003. Race and the Invisible Hand: How White Networks Exclude Black Men FromBlue-Collar Jobs. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Shapiro, Illana. 2002. “Training for Racial Equity & Inclusion: A Guide to Selected Programs.” Wash-ington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Smith, Robert C. 1995. Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era: Now You See It, Now You Don’t. Albany:State University of New York Press.

Steinberg, Stephen. 1995. Turning Back: The Retreat From Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy.Boston, MA: Beacon.

Thompson, Becky. 2001. A Promise and a Way of Life: White Antiracist Activism. Minneapolis: Univer-sity of Minnesota Press.

Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2007. Talking About Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wellman, David T. 1993. Portraits of White Racism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Wilson, Carter A. 1996. Racism: From Slavery to Advanced Capitalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


“Walk the Walk but Don't Talk the Talk: The Strategic Use of Color-Blind Ideology in an...

Documents

Transcript of “Walk the Walk but Don't Talk the Talk: The Strategic Use of Color-Blind Ideology in an...