Power Plus Prejudice Equals Racism

 (Part of a long-standing, ill-advised series titled "Idiot White Guy Talks About Race on the Internet")

Overall, I find the definition of "Racism is Power Plus Prejudice" a very good concept and I'm happy that it exists, despite the flaws that I find it in it personally. It was essential to moving the conversation away from racism being defined as an individual choice or opinion held by someone, and towards the idea that racism is something systemic, something that is acted upon people. However, I do think there are some flaws with having this be the only or even primary way to think about racism, and I think these flaws need to be addressed and improved upon.

First, I think we have an issue with definitions in general that needs to be addressed. Stop me if you heard this one before, you see someone walking down the street wearing a dress, high heels and makeup, with an hourglass figure and long hair, who speaks in a feminine way and with a high voice*, and you think, "Well, obviously this is a woman," but then a transphobe pops in to say, umm no, actually that's a man because there's one chromosome in her DNA somewhere that means man.

Now, there's a lot of things wrong with this -- including the fact that the word and concept of "woman" is way older than DNA -- so I don't want to get too bogged down here, but I will say that the transphobe is not using definitions correctly. That is to say, they are working backwards.

It seems difficult to imagine, but when we define a word, we do not make up a word and definition, especially with abstract concepts. You know what "justice" is don't you? Try to make a definition of it right now that actually explains the concept. You really can't without falling into a tautological nightmare. ("Well, justice is what's right. What's right? Well, when something happens in a just way.") Despite the fact that you know (and you really do) what "justice" means.

Spoon.

This isn't just the way that philosophical mumbo-jumbo gets defined either. How about "spoon"? You probably have the image of a spoon in your head now, but when is something no longer that ideal spoon and becomes a type of spoon or something that requires a different definition entirely?

Spoon.

Is this a spoon? This holds all of the typical characteristics of a spoon -- handle, scoopy thing -- but this is probably not the first thing you think of when I say "spoon". You may look at this and say, "This is not THE spoon, but it is a TYPE of spoon." or "No, this is a spoon-like thing, but it is not a spoon."

But that "Yes/No/Kinda" decision is what actually compromises definitions. You look at a thing and say, "Yes, that is X" or "No, that is not X".

Not spoon.

This has a handle and scoopy thing. Is it a spoon? No, not even a type of spoon.

A Rich Man steals a car from a Poor Man. The Poor Man can't drive to work, so he loses his job. He has to sell his other property to get enough money to get a car, then looks for another job, but the time spent unemployed put him behind on his rent. He gets evicted. The Rich Man goes to jail for a year and returns to his regular life. Is this justice?

This concept of "justice" which was quite difficult to define more now has a more clear image in your head doesn't it? No, this is not justice. I don't know what justice is, but this isn't it.

Ok, and well, not to belabor the point, but I think this is what is happening to definition of racism as being "power plus prejudice" 

First of all, what is hopefully the clear point is that definitions don't work like this. We cannot say, "This is racism because I define racism as X" or "This isn't racism because I define racism as X" on either side of the political aisle. If we expect people to look at a women and say "woman" regardless of whatever one little chromosome, we shouldn't turn around and say that we control definitions of other words.

Second, I think it is not useful to define abstract concepts in such narrow terms, because, well, they're abstract. There are things that exist in the world that may not be clearly "just" or "unjust" but there is some grey area. Things can differ in degrees where something can be very, very just or super-dupery unjust. There can be a difference in outcome that changes our perception. (Rich Man steals from Rich Man #1 feels "less unjust" than stealing from a Poor Man.)

And I think we absolutely need to keep our understanding of racism fluid and capable of being amended. Are racial slurs racist? I would agree that yes, they are, unequivocally. Are racial slurs against white people racist? Well, yeah, but not as much. Is systemic racism worse than a racial slur? Absolutely. These types of things help us understand the meanings of abstract concepts much better than a simple three-word definition ever will.

I think there is a pernicious aspect to this as well. Dip your toes into the discourse surrounding African-American and Asian-American racism towards each other. Would you find that "power" is clearly understood in this context? If a black man assaults a rich, Asian woman simply because she is Asian, is that racist? Yes, because the black man has physical strength which is power, but also no, because wealth is a better indicator of power than just muscles. And now our ideas of what is "racist" has been confused even more, when really, it seems quite obvious to me that if you physically harm someone because they are a different race other than you, that is racism.

But that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that while stupid lefties like me sit here and argue about, like, what even is a word, man, the conservatives out there in the world know that there is a gap in this "Power plus prejudice" definition, and it is the word "prejudice".

You see, for years, the right has been using that little gap to sneak through so much pernicious shit that honestly, at this point, it is our damn fault for not plugging that hole. If a white employer chooses to hire a white person because they are white and avoid hiring a black person because they are black, is that racism? Well, yes, but the conservative argues that no, this is unfortunate, but it is not racially motivated. You see, white people, on average, seem to go to better schools and have more stable home lives than black people, you see, so it just makes more business sense to hire this white person. Is this hiring manager at fault? No, of course not, because there was no prejudice behind such an action, they would argue.

And the thing is, we need all types of spoons. We need the little spoon of, "Hey man, it's racist to assume that the black guy didn't go to a nice school," and we need the bigger spoon of "Wait, isn't it racist that we all assume that this white guy went to a nice school?" and then a ladle or something of "Wait, isn't this a racist system that we have where black people have been redlined into areas of lower property values and we use property values to determine how much funding a school gets?" and then oh jesus, there's a bathtub-sized spoon over there that just says SLAVERY on it.

Anyway, the point is, be nice to trans people, don't accept racism of any form, tear down the hierarchical systems that chain us all, and redistribute all the wealth. Also, buy more spoons, I guess.