Tacit Racism

Tacit Racism

Tacit Racism

ANNE WARFIELD RAWLS & WAVERLY DUCK

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

CHICAGO AND LONDON

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637

The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London

© 2020 by The University of Chicago

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of brief quotations in critical articles and reviews. For more information, contact the University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637.

Published 2020

Printed in the United States of America

29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20    1 2 3 4 5

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-70355-8 (cloth)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-70369-5 (paper)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-70372-5 (e-book)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226703725.001.0001

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Rawls, Anne Warfield, 1950– author. | Duck, Waverly, author.

Title: Tacit racism / Anne Warfield Rawls and Waverly Duck.

Description: Chicago ; London : The University of Chicago Press, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019057904 | ISBN 9780226703558 (cloth) | ISBN 9780226703695 (paperback) | ISBN 9780226703725 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Racism—United States. | Social interaction—United States. | United States—Race relations.

Classification: LCC E184.A1 R36 2020 | DDC 305.800973—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019057904

This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

I want justice, oceans of it. I want fairness, rivers of it. That’s all I want. That’s all I want.

—Elijah Cummings¹

I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the . . . Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to order than to justice. . . . Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

—Martin Luther King Jr.

Contents

INTRODUCTION   Racism Is a Clear and Present Danger

CHAPTER 1.   White People Are Nosey and Black People Are Rude: Black and White Greetings and Introductory Talk

CHAPTER 2.   Fractured Reflections of High-Status Black Men’s Presentations of Self: Non-Recognition of Identity as a Tacit Form of Institutional Racism

CHAPTER 3.   Clashing Conceptions of Honesty: Black American Honesty in the White Workplace

CHAPTER 4.   A Man Is One Who Is Responsible for Others: Achieving Black Masculinity in the Face of Institutionalized Stigma and Racism

CHAPTER 5.   The White Self-Interested Strong Man Ideal vs. the Black Practice of Submissive Civility: In a Black/White Police Encounter

with Jason Turowetz

CHAPTER 6.   Do You Eat Cats and Dogs?: Student Observations of Racism in Their Everyday Lives

CHAPTER 7.   The Interaction Order of a Poor Black American Space: Creating Respect, Recognition, and Value in Response to Collective Punishment

CONCLUSION   Digging out the Lies by Making the Ordinary Strange

Acknowledgments

Notes

Bibliography

Index

INTRODUCTION

Racism Is a Clear and Present Danger

If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

—Lyndon B. Johnson

Since the 1670s, fifty years after the first Africans were sold into slavery at Jamestown in 1619, racism has steadily and relentlessly wormed its way so deeply into the foundations of the American democratic experiment that we typically don’t even notice it. Racism does not usually take an obvious form that we can see and prevent; rather it masquerades as the most ordinary of daily actions: as unnoticed and ever-present as the air we breathe. In this book we illustrate the many ways in which racism is coded into the everyday social expectations of Americans, in taken-for-granted Interaction Orders of Race (Rawls 1983, 1987, 2000) that create vast amounts of hidden unconscious—Tacit Racism—which most Americans are not aware of. Because it is institutionalized in our everyday interactional expectations, acting on this racism does not require conscious intent: actions are racist if Race is coded into them. This racism divides the United States, providing fertile ground for the manipulation of issues associated with Race (e.g., health care, guns, voting rights, and immigration) by wealthy special interests and foreign powers (López 2019; Metzl 2019; Saez and Zucman 2019), with Russia in particular exploiting Race to interfere with our elections (Wylie 2019; Maddow 2019), such that Race divisions pose a clear and present danger to the nation and its democratic institutions.¹

In over twenty-five years of research, the authors have found that without being aware of it, everyone in the United States acts in racist ways just by doing ordinary things. In his book The White Racial Frame (2009), Joe Feagin shows that a 350-year-old racial gestalt shapes the way Americans view Race such that, as studies of implicit bias show (Greenwald and Krieger 2006; Jost et al. 2009), most Americans see and hear non-White Others in racist ways.² Since the birth of Black/White racism—which Theodore Allen (1994, 1997), in his two-volume magnum opus The Invention of the White Race, documents the beginnings of in 1670s Virginia—the myth of a dominant White Race has played a preeminent role in the social, economic, and political organization of the United States. According to Jonathan Metzl (2019) in Dying of Whiteness, Americans who identify as White, particularly White men, are literally dying for their investment in the mythology of Whiteness. The vast majority of Americans are being hurt by racism.

The irony is that Race is not a biological fact. It is a social convention, a social fact (a fact by social agreement). There is no White Race, no White civilization, and there are no White people, except as a matter of agreement. (Race terms—including Race, Black, White, and Other when used to indicate a racialized Other—are capitalized throughout to highlight this social fact status.) Furthermore, each country has categorized differences between people in ways that suit its own needs, so Race categories differ by country. The Race issues we discuss in this book belong uniquely to the United States (Omi and Winant 1986, Allen 1994). Other important categories like Latinx/Hispanic and Asian not only do not denote Races the way the Black/White binary is intended to—even by agreement—they confer outsider status. Persons in these categories do not easily fit within the American binary. For Latinx/Hispanic, this is the case even though the oldest colonies in the United States were Spanish. The binary American Black/White category system that is taken for granted in the United States today is Anglo in origin. It was invented by rich English plantation owners in the Jamestown, Virginia, colony to trick poor Irish, Scotch, and English laborers into controlling African laborers for them (Allen 1994, 1997).³ It was from the beginning a system predicated on the idea that everyone would be categorized as either Black or White and that all would be Anglo—a reaction to ongoing hostilities with Spain.⁴ The invention of Whiteness was very simply a ploy by the rich to divide and conquer the colonial American working classes by Race, while also eliminating Spanish influence.

Corresponding myths about Blackness and the alleged violence and criminality of Black Americans have been used systematically to control White Americans since the late 1600s, encouraging them to remain in segregated rural areas and all-White enclaves; and when White Americans do rebel against this control and start speaking out in their own interest, powerful forces move quickly to punish them.⁵ The myth of Black criminality and violence is as much a fiction as the myth of White superiority. Just as there is no White Race, there is no Black Race. Furthermore, studies of unreported crime suggest that the real White American crime rate is actually higher than for other categories of people. It has just not been recorded because the police do not patrol White neighborhoods the same way they patrol Black neighborhoods. White Americans have been made to fear the illusion of Black violence. But, as Michael Males (2017) reports, White Americans in predominantly White Republican counties are 50% more likely to die from violence than White Americans in racially diverse Democratic counties. It turns out that the biggest threat to White Americans is living in isolated White communities among themselves.

Nevertheless, on the basis of social fictions about a criminalblackman (Russell-Brown 2009) and Black-on-Black crime, Black Americans continue to be feared; shot by the police; denied jobs, education, housing, and the right to vote; and incarcerated at record rates for things that most White Americans do with impunity. Then when Black Americans do manage to secure high-status positions, they often find that the White Americans they work with do not recognize their legitimate status or competence, creating problems for them on the job and giving them back only fractured reflections of the identities they have achieved (Rawls and Duck 2017).

While many believe that Black Americans suffer from what Frantz Fanon (1952) called the colonial mentality, leading to low self-esteem and impoverished cultural development, we note that it is primarily White Americans, not Black Americans, who are exhibiting the characteristics Fanon describes: in particular trying to emulate the wealthy White people who oppress them—a process that has become deeply invested in fantasies about Whiteness. Details about how voters were targeted by social media during the 2016 election suggest that those who designed the algorithms used to target susceptible voters understood and took advantage of the psychological correlates of this social condition (Wylie 2019).

We take the position of W. E. B. Du Bois (1903), who believed that because Black Americans have an experience of being seen by the White Other as inferior, while at the same time being blocked from emulating them, they have developed what he called double consciousness, which has enabled Black Americans to create their own community that insulates them against the colonial condition. As Cornel West ([1982] 2002) noted, trying to emulate White Americans is detrimental to the well-being of Black Americans.⁶ Our research shows that Black interaction order preferences tacitly embed this understanding. Thus, in the current crisis, it is ironically the colonial mentality of White Americans that threatens to overturn our democracy. In the words of Leonard Pitts (2019), The Republican Party’s appeal . . . stems largely from an implicit promise: Vote for us, and we will repeal the 20th century. However, while White Americans—egged on by the 1%—are trying to undo the civil rights reforms of the last century, Black Americans remain committed to a democratic future for every single American, and our research shows that Black American interaction order expectations reflect this commitment.

Powerful special interests are well organized to keep White Americans in thrall to an anti-democratic racial mythology that encourages them to continue trying to keep Black Americans in their place (Maddow 2019; Mayer 2016; Skocpol and Williamson 2011). Black American attempts to organize have also met with powerful political opposition.⁷ But the primary objective has been to use Race to divide workers.⁸ Each time White workers have begun to organize for their own benefit, special interests have quickly mobilized racialized counter-narratives (you have no job because affirmative action gave Black people your jobs) in combination with political and legal action to stop them.⁹ According to Kerri Merritt (2017), the need to put an end to the threat of a strike to end slavery by White southern laborers before the Civil War hastened the beginning of that war. Over the course of American history, the myth of White racial superiority has been the principal means of controlling White workers.

The question of why White Americans so often vote against their own self-interest has a simple answer: they do it to preserve their investment in the fantasy of Whiteness.

At this point of national crisis, we need to have a general conversation about Race to liberate both White and Black Americans from the myths that divide the nation. Racism and democracy cannot coexist. Racism is a basic failure to recognize the Other as a human being like oneself: a failure of empathy and reciprocity that impacts communication, social interaction, and the life chances of all citizens. Because most Americans now believe that racism is wrong, the discussion of Race we need to have should be possible. But a strong tendency to treat racism either as a matter of personal bias (whether overt or implicit), or as explicit bias in formal rules and laws, is getting in the way. First, the way we think about Race and racism will need to change. Not only does thinking about racism this way ignore the racism coded into interaction, but focusing on individuals and their attitudes creates the false impression that individual prejudice is a bigger problem than the tacit racism that has been coded into interaction that makes individuals and institutions act in racist ways in the first place.

This sets up the problem backward. It overlooks the most prevalent forms of institutionalized racism—which are tacit, not explicit—and obscures the fact that we all unknowingly act in racist ways. It also scares White Americans, who do not want to be told they are racist, and keeps them away from the conversation we need to have about Race. Ultimately, the biggest problem is not the explicit racism of institutions or individual racists and their attitudes—these we can see and deal with. The biggest problem is the racism we can’t see that is structured into the fabric of American life, shaping the actions and implicit biases of all Americans in racist ways, encouraged by the powerful special interests and foreign powers that are taking advantage of our divided nation. Our country was built on a racist labor system that is still sustained by the many myths, lies, and fantasies about Race, and this has shaped our national culture. This is one of the reasons why we still need to talk about slavery. The preferred ways of interacting that have developed over time among Black and White Americans reflect the underlying racism embedded in our society. Given this background, how could we not be enacting hidden tacit racist codes every day?

In focusing on the Black/White binary and the two clashing interaction orders that correspond to it, we are not overlooking the existence of other categories of people identified by Race and/or culture in the United States who experience racism and exclusion. What we argue, however, is that they, too, find themselves positioned against the Black/White binary when they are in the US. The main category terms for such people are Asian, Latinx/Hispanic, and West Indian/African. We note that these are catch-all categories that can be offensive in themselves (i.e., Asian covers a broad range of countries including Russia, India, and parts of the Middle East, in addition to China, Korea, Japan, and Southeast Asia, while Latinx/Hispanic includes all of South America, parts of North America, and many islands, and the same is true for West Indian/African). Most of those so categorized self-identify by nationality or culture in ways that are not recognized in the US. West Indians and Africans, for instance, typically self-identify by nationality and often consider themselves White. But in this country, they are usually treated as if they were not only Black, but Black Americans. We note that members of the Latinx/Hispanic category in the US fall on both sides of the Black/White binary, splitting the community. Some are identified by Americans as White, while others are identified as Black, affiliations they struggle with. Outside the US, Latinx/Hispanic is not a Race category. But in the context of the US binary, it often functions as one—a complication that is beginning to draw some serious attention.¹⁰

We take the position that all racism (and misperceptions of Race) in the US are structured by the Black/White binary, and consequently that all other racial/cultural classifications in this country can best be understood in terms of their positioning in relationship to that binary. This ironically holds for the category Native American as well.¹¹

The Black/White binary has been close to absolute for 350 years. Americans tend to be perceived as either Black or White, although who is considered White/Black shifted over the course of the twentieth century, with categories such as Jews, Middle Easteners, and Italians shifting from Black to White (Brodkin 1998; Maghbouleh 2017). Those who cannot be classified within the binary tend to be perceived as outsiders no matter how long they and/or their ancestors have lived here. Those who come to the United States from elsewhere are usually not aware of the way Race categories work in this country or how they will be assigned to (or excluded from) those categories by Americans. Nor are they aware of the expectations of the interaction orders of the categories to which they may be assigned. Students who arrive in the US from Haiti, the Bahamas, or India, for instance, typically identify as Haitian, Bahamian, or Indian. But they will be told by Americans in no uncertain terms that they are Black or Asian. Furthermore, the strength of the American binary leads to a strong unconscious tendency to perceive Black West Indians and Latinx/Hispanics as Black Americans (insiders), while perceiving those that are put in the Asian category as foreign and/or exotic (outsiders). As a consequence, Asian American citizens are typically perceived as not American, asked where they come from, and complimented on their command of English. If they answer that they were born in the US, they are asked where their parents and/or grandparents came from. Americans who perceive Asian Americans this way are typically unaware that they are engaging in a very prevalent and powerful form of racial exclusion. The same often happens to those Latinx/Hispanic citizens who cannot be easily categorized as either White or Black.

Because this foreign status accorded to Asian Americans and some Latinx/Hispanic and Native Americans is defined by the Black/White binary, it is against that binary that we seek to understand their experiences with racism and exclusion in the US. In chapter 6 we present observations of racism against Asians and Asian Americans that illustrate the tacit assumptions about being foreign that are at work (i.e., assumptions that Asians can’t do ordinary American things like driving, walking, and talking), which reveal the positioning of this category against the Black/White binary. We also explore some of the complications of Latinx/Hispanic and West Indian/African identities through these observations. Then in the conclusion, we consider how racism and exclusion toward Latinx/Hispanic Americans, refugees and immigrants, are positioned not only against the Black/White binary, but also in the context of an old seventeenth-century Anglo/Spanish antagonism.

Our aim in this book is to examine how the legacy of the Black/White binary and its attendant anti-Asian and anti-Spanish forms of racism have been coded into ordinary social interaction in the United States—as tacit racism—so that we can stop pretending we are a democratic society and start becoming one. This will require achieving a level of awareness about Race among White Americans that we call White double consciousness in homage to Du Bois. Just as the experience of being seen as inferior has, he argued, enabled Black Americans to develop some insight about racism, we hope that an awareness of the many ways in which White Americans are acting out a false code of racial superiority will give them a corresponding insight into their own racism. Until we can develop a general awareness of the racism in our own actions, the defensiveness of Americans who identify as White, described by Robin DiAngelo (2018) in White Fragility, that leads them to deny they are acting in racist ways, will keep getting in the way of the awareness of Race and racism we need to achieve.

Organization of the Book

In the chapters that follow, we report on three decades of research on social interaction between Black and White Americans, the objective of which is to explore the nuances of tacit racism and explain how it works in social interaction. It is our position that this racism disrupts interaction and fractures society, demonstrating why equality is not just an ideal, but a necessity in a diverse modern society (Rawls 2019, 2020). As we studied the various tacit forms of racism, we watched it become more prolific and complex over time—burrowing deeper into the social practices of daily life. Ironically, as this happened it also became increasingly difficult to convince people that Race was a problem. After Barack Obama was elected, many White Americans were convinced they were living in a post-racial society and that Black Americans were exaggerating their problems. The dangerous fiction that racism could be overcome by being color-blind, which Bonilla-Silva (2003) warned against in his book Racism without Racists, was also well entrenched. Most Black Americans knew racism had not gone away, but still remained optimistic that some progress was being made. It is only since the 2016 election that the fantasies of White supremacy have burst out in public to shock the nation.

What we found is that the institutional embeddedness of tacit racism had allowed it to become more deeply hidden and effective until, having burrowed its way into the most ordinary aspects of everyday life, it suddenly popped back up in public discourse in the backlash against Obama and the wave of White resentment that followed. While some White Americans were celebrating what they took to be a new milestone in racial equality, others had been secretly seething because what they disparagingly call PC, or political correctness, was preventing them from expressing their racism: their investment in Whiteness.

False narratives about Black Americans getting most of the benefits from government safety net programs, popularized in the 1970s, were used in combination with the new myths of the criminalblackman (Russell-Brown 2009) popularized under Ronald Reagan, and a growing fear of Black Americans as different and un-American, to convince a significant number of White Americans that the US government had been taken over by foreigners and criminals, leading to the Tea Party movement (Skocpol and Williamson 2011: 78–79). In this context, the way we found tacit racism sustaining false narratives and myths about Race is a pressing concern.

Each chapter examines a form of tacit racism in detail. In describing and analyzing social interactions, where possible we also attempt to introduce the reader to the actual people involved—to give them a voice in telling their stories. We open in chapter 1 with an analysis of everyday tacit expectations about how people get to know one another, what they consider personal or honest, and how what conforms to their ideas of order and disorder differs by Race. These differences make it difficult for Black and White Americans to even begin relationships, and frequently support the contrasting narratives that White people are nosey and Black people are rude, the title of our first chapter. The second chapter explores how racial framings of identity interfere with the recognition of the high-status identity, legitimacy, and competence of Black men in the workplace, producing what we call fractured reflections of their presentations of self.

While many Americans believe that status offers protection against racial discrimination, we show how as Black Americans rise in the corporate world, tacit racism interferes with their work and obscures their achievements. In the third chapter, White and Black conceptions of honesty are contrasted, showing how differences in how honesty is understood as an interactional obligation can affect cross-racial relationships both in and out of the workplace. The fourth chapter documents interaction order misalignments in talk about health and responsibility that challenge conventional conceptions of Black masculinity (which we reconceptualize in terms of a democratic ideal we identify with a practice we call submissive civility). These interaction order issues are brought to bear on three distinct social contexts in the chapters that follow: a White/Black police/citizen encounter, primarily White college campuses, and a poor Black neighborhood.

In each case we document the interaction order expectations in these settings in detail and analyze how they clash. In chapter 5, we take up Du Bois’s (1890) conception of the Submissive Man (foreshadowed in chapter 4), in the context of a police/citizen encounter, showing how the Black American preference for submission to the good of the whole (submissive civility) clashes with the individualism of the White Strong Man ideal, to produce misunderstandings that, in addition to a Black citizen’s inability to get his identity recognized, are used by White police officers as a pretext for his violent arrest.

In chapter 6, we consider the impact of tacit racism on the academic life of several college campuses, finding that—even for White students—the racism of other White students and faculty is oppressive. Surrounded by racism, White college students realize they have been treating it as normal. We refer to the constant daily downpour of racism they report as Race pollution. Chapter 7 considers a poor Black neighborhood that has been the target of outside interference for decades. Here we find that contrary to what most people believe, drug dealers are valued insiders who are key to the stability and safety of the neighborhood, while the police and other outsiders are the main threat. There are other neighborhoods where the police have managed to so completely erode the local interaction order that drug dealers, often referred to as gangs, do not have a positive function. But in this neighborhood, in spite of persistent outside interference, we find that the internal order—with the drug dealers at its center—is still better and stronger than the order that outsiders seek to impose.

In surveys, White Americans overwhelmingly say they believe in fairness, but what they mean by fairness is highly individualistic. Many White Americans believe that if they could get rid of rules, society, and government, they would be free as individuals and things would be fair. Black Americans, by contrast, typically embrace a sense of fairness that acknowledges the sociological premise that humans depend on cooperation with one another for everything: for meaning, self, a sense of community, and even the achievement of individual autonomy, and that, as a consequence, freedom is only possible within a social organization that supports that possibility (Durkheim 1893; Rawls 2019, 2020). James Baldwin famously said that the price of becoming White was that Americans of European descent had lost any sense of community, which explained what he called a remarkable and terrifying crisis of leadership in the White community that had taken generations and a great deal of coercion to produce (Baldwin 1984). With White Americans favoring individualism and Black Americans prioritizing community, Race differences play directly into the current American political narrative, which pits strong man individualism against what is being called collectivism, but is actually just the basic idea that human civilization can only develop and persist within an organized community.

Research by psychologists and Critical Race scholars is documenting high levels of unconscious racism. A rapidly growing stream of such research shows that White Americans literally see Black Americans in racist ways. Looking at a photo of a Black man, they are more likely to feel afraid or describe a criminal (Wise 2010). Given a description of a crime, they are much more likely to assume the perpetrator is Black than White (Dixon and Maddox 2005). Presented with a job application, White Americans are twice as likely to favor a White man they are told is a convicted felon with no college education over a Black man with no criminal record and a college degree (Pager 2003, 2008). Studies of medicine and law find that high levels of implicit bias are leading to unequal outcomes for Black patients and defendants (Green et al. 2007; Bagentsos 2007; Bennett 2010). High levels of implicit bias are found even among White people who identify as liberal and claim not to be prejudiced. Significant implicit bias is also found among Black Americans. Studies by Claude Steele (Steele and Aronson 1995), Joyce Bell (Bell and Hartmann 2007), and others also document the subtleties of stereotypes and raced speech.

While these studies are persuasive, they don’t explain where unconscious forms of racism come from, why they persist, or how they work in everyday interaction. Our research is designed to answer these questions through a close examination of how differences in the racialized experiences of Black and White Americans are institutionalized in tacit interaction order expectations that differ by Race. We explain the differential focus on individual versus community. We also describe the social conditions that create and sustain these differences.

While it is clear that politics funded by Dark Money has been fanning the flames of racial resentment (Mayer 2016), if Americans didn’t already have a Race problem, it would not have worked. A division between White and Black Americans that benefits only the very rich has kept the US from achieving democracy for 350 years. The clashing expectations we document have both emerged from and reproduced these divisions. As Anne Rawls (2000) has documented, racialized differences in expectations go so deep that even assumptions about the definition of the situation—that is, the understanding of what behaviors are appropriate and expected by type of situation—and the identities and meanings that such definitions make relevant in social interaction are not the same.¹² The White self organizes around status achievements, resulting in a categorial form of identity; while for Black Americans meaning and identity work are, by contrast, organized around the intrinsic value of being human in the immediate setting and resist categorization.

The two interaction orders are like mirror opposites. The separation by Race that both motivates and results from these clashing expectations reinforces existing myths about Race while continuing to generate more false beliefs and stereotypes that frame the way Americans think about Race and inequality and further divide the nation. While tacit racism originated in forms of racial exclusion associated with slavery and labor control in the early American colonies, we show how the tacit racism that is a staple of modern America continues to create new forms of tacit racism and inequality: becoming ever more sophisticated and more deeply coded into our daily lives.

Our Research on Tacit Interaction Orders of Race

Our research, based on fieldwork and the collection of narratives and audio and video recordings of interaction, documents the underlying differences in tacit expectations about interaction, different definitions of the situation, and the identities and expectations they embed, which are the foundation of sense-making for Americans according to their identification as Black or White. We argue that these interaction orders encode—institutionalize—the shared tacit rules and expectations that are used to coordinate daily sense-making—in the form of unconscious, taken-for-granted, normally thoughtless practices (Garfinkel 1967). These practices do not vary by individual, but rather by social and racial self-identification. When social expectations match and sense-making works, nobody thinks about how it works: and the process remains unconscious. However, when the expectations involved in this coordination do not match—and we show that with White and Black Americans they often don’t match—sense-making cannot be coordinated.

When people have trouble making sense, we find that they stop taking interaction for granted, tacit coordination stops, and they begin to explicitly question each other’s character, competence, and motivation (Rawls and David 2006; Rawls and Duck 2017). Interactional obligations—Trust Conditions (Garfinkel 1963)—require participants to use the same expectations as others in an interaction and to treat those others as competent to do the same. When one interaction involves two interaction orders without all participants being aware of this, these conditions are not being met. It is as if one person played checkers while the other played chess, but both thought they were playing the same game. The blame participants cast on each other for the resulting troubles generates narratives about Race that create new racial stereotypes, and reinforce old ones, generally making democratic public spaces impossible to achieve.

Our research documents how living separately and under different conditions, Americans who identify as White and Black have coded contrasting interactional expectations into their daily practices. A priority on individualism and social hierarchy that was characteristic of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European thinking is coded into the White interaction order, while the Black interaction order, which developed in response to racism, is more modern in prioritizing equality, privacy, and democracy. The democratic character of Black American expectations will surprise those who assume that White American culture is superior.

That there are differences at all is a surprise to most White Americans, who tend to assume that all Americans have the same interactional expectations because they live in the same society. They are overlooking the fact that Black and White Americans have essentially lived separately in this country under very different circumstances for centuries. It would actually be more surprising if under such conditions Black and White Americans had developed the same social expectations. It is also not surprising that the expectations of White Americans preserve the seventeenth-century European upper-class priorities of the elite English landowners who first invented Whiteness to use as a manipulative tool. By contrast, Black American awareness of their own racial oppression, famously called double consciousness by Du Bois (1903), in combination with the strong racial binary that blocked them from aspiring to Whiteness, shaped the development of a very different set of interactional expectations that work as a shield against oppression, prioritizing equality and democracy and creating the possibility of living in a Black American community of equals. As a consequence, White American priorities preserve the inequalities of a pre-democratic seventeenth-century culture, while Black American priorities reflect a dynamic move toward modern democratic aspirations.

In contrast to the popular belief that Black American cultural preferences reflect an impoverished perspective that has been damaged by centuries of oppression, we find that the tacit interactional expectations of Black Americans embody a respect for equality, community, and personhood adopted as a creative response to racial oppression and exclusion that is largely missing from the tacit expectations of White Americans, who, we argue, are impoverished by this lack. The Black American expectations we document tend to be democratic in orientation, rising above Race, class, and gender differences, to deliver an oasis of equality to anyone who participates—Black, White, or Other—as long as they understand and respect the ground rules of the Black interaction order. White Americans, by contrast, remain faithful to an exclusive colonial status hierarchy that was designed to oppress and manipulate them, exhibiting a distressing tendency to value authority over freedom and status over personhood.

In a talk given in 1890, Du Bois introduced his conception of the Submissive Man as a Black American ideal that, he argued, is a needed counterbalance to the White Strong Man ideal (which for Du Bois was exemplified by Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy—but is also an apt description of Donald Trump’s self-interested approach). The White ideal needs a counterbalance because the high value it places on individualism elevates the individual over the community, enshrining a dangerous degree of narcissism as an ideal. Whereas the White ideal places the highest value on the independence and self-interest of the Strong Man individual, Du Bois proposed that in response Black Americans place a higher value on democracy and the good of the community as a whole. In chapters 4 and 5, we identify a Black interaction order practice we call submissive civility and relate it to Du Bois’s argument that the Black American grasp of democracy is stronger than that of White Americans because the Black American experience of racial oppression led to the development of a double consciousness about that oppression.

Because the double consciousness that comes with the experience of racial oppression has given Black Americans an awareness of differences between White and Black American interactional expectations,