Beyond the Black–White Binary of U.S. Race Relations: A Next Step in Religious Education

Abstract

Many if not most people in the academy as well as the public sphere tend to regard race and racism in the United States in terms of a default frame of reference (i.e., a paradigm): the black–white binary. Although this frame is constructive as well as compelling, it displays serious liabilities. This article outlines, for religious educators, nine expressions of the black–white paradigm—three variations of the binary, three approaches from black studies/theology, and three models that express efforts to transcend binary thinking. A concluding comparative exercise illustrates how participants may discern, address, and ideally revise the paradigm.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to John Vaughn, Tito Cruz, Mai-Anh Le Tran, and Christopher The for early conversations that inspired my thinking. I am grateful to Dr. Chris Schlauch for his helpful comments on drafts and to Sang-il Kim for his research assistance.

Notes

1 One exception is Hawaii, where the black–white binary is not the default frame of reference for understanding race and racism, although its influence is felt indirectly (Sharma 2011).

2 In note 2, Perea cites and quotes eight articles in various law reviews and journals from the mid-1990s that address the black–white binary in terms of a paradigm (1997, 1214).

3 For a discussion of the need for whites to protect their “fragility” when it comes to race, see DiAngelo (2011).

4 I am estimating the timeline judging by William Saffire's op-ed piece (1988) in the New York Times, which discusses “people of color” as a new term.

5 Journalists have attempted to trace this history in Saffire (1988) and Malesky (2014).

6 A major proponent of the appropriateness of black oppression as the appropriate frame of reference for all white racism, even globally is Feagin (2000).

7 An example of a white theologian influenced by Cone and perpetuating the black–white paradigm is the work of Jon Nilson (2007), who argues “why white Catholic theologians need black theology” as he says in the subtitle of his book.

8 I make this same critique of the “middlemen theory” and the “tri-racial system” theory below.

9 This is a reference from Robert Frost's “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” (1969, 225).

10 Hyun-Sook Kim (2012, 251) helps me to understand the varieties of multicultural education. The author identifies three perspectives: “(1) the critical race approach from a liberation perspective; (2) the citizenship approach from an inclusive perspective; and (3) the intercultural approach from a global perspective.” I address citizenship approaches because I believe they are most common in religious education.

11 Hess critiques her graduate studies in religious education as avoiding issues of race and power (1998, 121).

12 Alcoff makes a similar critique of the black–white binary, recognizing that racism operates on more than the axis of color (2003, 19).

13 Xu and Lee's study compares white and black perceptions of Asian Americans. They also analyze perceptions of Hispanic Americans and compare it with that of Asian Americans.

14 In trying to identify additional strategies, one might assume that intersectionality theory could effectively disrupt the black–white binary. On the face of it, intersectionality offers what may appear to be a new frame in which to consider race—as inextricably related to dynamics of sexism, classism, and other forms of privilege. Although a reframe suggests movement beyond the binary, I would be hesitant to embrace this view for several reasons. First, the black–white dichotomy is, as I have sought to demonstrate, thoroughly entrenched in scholarly and public thinking. One cannot truly supplant something tacitly operating and treated as “given” without directly challenging it and explaining how what is new functions as a more adequate replacement. Second, by situating race as one among several factors, it runs the risk of muting awareness not only of race and racism, but of the enduring ways of making sense of race and racism (that is, the tacit binary), including underlying motivations to continue to think and speak in terms of the dichotomy.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Courtney T. Goto

Courtney T. Goto is an Assistant Professor of Religious Education at the Boston University School of Theology. She is the author of The Grace of Playing: Pedagogies for Leaning into God's New Creation (Pickwick, 2016), the third book published in the Religious Education Association Horizons Series. Her current project is titled Taking on Practical Theology: The Idolization of Context and the Hope of Community. E-mail: [email protected]