(The Root) — There are moments in which tension surrounding discussion of America’s racial history and resistance to acknowledging racism couldn’t be clearer. Criticizing Saturday’s commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Laura Ingraham scoffed at the issues addressed by the speakers, accused participants of attempting “to co-opt the legacy of Martin Luther King into a modern-day liberal agenda” and punctuated a clip of Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) speaking with the sound of a gunshot.
But flat-out hostility isn’t the only thing we should be concerned about, says Alexis McGill Johnson. She’s the executive director of American Values Institute, a consortium of researchers, educators and social justice advocates whose work analyzes the role of bias and racial anxiety in our society. She worries the panic that seizes even the most well-intended among us when we talk about race and racism is what’s limiting real racial progress.
The problems, she says, include the way we tend to talk about race in inaccurate “racist or not racist” binaries (versus acknowledging that people can hold unconscious biases), a widespread adherence to the false goal of colorblindness and a hesitancy to acknowledge that Americans are more confused, ambivalent or curious than they feel safe admitting when it comes to questions of race.
We spoke to McGill Johnson about the racial anxiety that she says will stifle conversations around this week’s March on Washington anniversary and beyond, where it comes from and how Americans can begin to get past it.
The Root: Through the lens of your focus on racial anxiety, what’s missing from the commemorations of the March on Washington?
Alexis McGill Johnson: In some ways, they are actually feeding into the right-wing strategy, which is to increase racial anxiety. Racial anxiety is a deep fear of being seen as racist or fears that one will be the object of racism. It is grounded in research of the mind sciences, which tells us that our experience of race is as much of an emotional construct as it is a historical-structural-cognitive construct.
This is a moment when I think we’ll hear a lot of things that trigger that reality — we’ll hear about unresolved history and structural disparities, for example. These things will be reinforced over and over again.
And if the right is saying, “If you mention race, then you’re a racist,” and all of a sudden we’re documenting disparities, what we’re doing is actually turning people’s brains off. That’s because implicit-bias research tells us that the more disparity numbers you mention, the more you talk about people being marginalized, the further you move them into dehumanization in the brain.