When I was in graduate school, I fell in love for the first time. She was attractive and I was on cloud nine that she wanted me. But her mother did not want me. More specifically, her mother, who happened to be a well-educated professional and self-described “feminist,” did not want her white daughter to date a Black man. I believed that if I could meet my girlfriend’s mother, I could show her what a good man I was and change her mind. But she refused even to meet me. She eventually forced her daughter to break up with me. It broke my heart.
Heartbreak is probably normal in the loss of all first loves, but it was particularly painful that I lost the relationship purely because of racism. It was a turning point in my life. Up until that point I had known racism existed and experienced it myself. But I’d believed I could overcome any barriers racism placed before me. I naively felt that once people got to know me, they would not hold on to their racist stereotypes and would treat me fairly. My experience with my girlfriend showed me that racism was so pervasive and powerful that there were barriers I could not overcome no matter how competent, likable or moral I was. Because of this ugly racism, a woman who would not even meet with me judged me for being Black. If this racism had not personally impacted me, I am not certain I would have developed the level of interest I have today in confronting this cancer.
Our unhealthy cycle
As many have said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. But we do not have to be insane. We can consider why we have our current racial situation and choose a different route. Have you noticed our unhealthy cycle of racial controversy in the United States? It goes like this: We have a racial incident, such as a police shooting of an African American, and then we have a series of protests demanding justice. After a while there are counterprotests and pushback from those who consider the demands of the protesters to be unreasonable. Finally, we return to some kind of normalcy and wait for the next racial incident to start the cycle all over again.
We have two contradictory forces fighting for ascendency in our debate on how to deal with racial alienation.
This cycle is the direct result of the fact that we have two contradictory forces fighting for ascendency in our debate on how to deal with racial alienation. After a racial incident, those promoting some version of anti-racism become active. For the moment, they have the upper hand in the news cycle. But over time, those supporting a more colorblind approach push back. They argue that anti-racists have overplayed their concerns or that this incident is not a real example of racism. The argument shifts, allowing them the opportunity to push their agenda forward. With both groups going at each other, we then return to our stalemate between the forces of colorblindness and anti-racism.
Generally speaking, strong adherents in either group do not alter their perspective due to the new racial incident. Instead, they become more entrenched in the rightness of their cause. But soon the attention of the public is drawn to a different event or situation and the momentum to deal with our racialized society begins to evaporate. Neither those advocating colorblindness nor those supporting anti-racism have been reduced in numbers or social power, so they remain ready to fight on a new day. Any political or social victories won by either side of this racialized debate are short-lived due to the reality that another powerful social group stands ready to resist those victories. The fight, and the cycle, go on.
As long as we are convinced that these are our only two options, this process will continue for the foreseeable future. One possible outcome is that eventually either colorblindness or anti-racism will win out and that side will implement long-term social and political reforms according to their own desires. That is a possibility, and I am certain both groups would like to see it occur for their own cause. But it is not likely to happen soon, and in the meantime more social damage will be done in our racial wars. Furthermore, do we think the vanquished group will just go away? Or will they stick around and do all they can to ruin the reforms promoted by the victors?
We can pick a side to fight for and wait to see which group will win, or we can acknowledge that these racial wars are not good for our society and figure out how to work together. We badly need to find solutions that are not short-term but sustainable in a racialized society, since multiple groups have “skin” in the game. This is the only way for us, in any reasonable time frame, to reduce or even eliminate our sick cycle of racial event, protest, counterprotest, normalcy and new racial event that continues to plague us.
Mutual accountability
In previous works, I have spoken of mutual obligation or mutual responsibility when it comes to issues of race. Today I prefer the phrase mutual accountability. But if this is not clear, the main element of this model can be described with another two-word concept: collaborative conversations. A collaborative conversation has been defined as “a purposeful, outcome-driven conversation aimed at building on each other’s ideas.” The key to this process is that everyone is allowed to participate, and everyone’s ideas are taken seriously. Everyone has a say in the final outcome. A willingness to participate in the conversation and to make room for the contributions of others is expected. We are all accountable to find solutions that best serve everybody, thus the term mutual accountability.
Mutual accountability is not an insistence that we find equal and identical roles for everyone in our society. It is about our mutual responsibility to enter into the conversation. The outcome will be worked out in that conversation. To use an analogy, if a husband is going out with his male friends too much, he and his wife have a responsibility to discuss a solution they can live with. It is not for her to dictate how much and how often he can go out with them. She may not want him to go out at all, but he has a need for their companionship. It is not up to the husband to decide either. He must take his wife’s needs into account. Rather, they both enter a collaborative conversation to find the best solution for their relationship.
Notice what has not happened. The wife has not been asked to cut down on time spent on her relationships with her female friends, because that was not the problem at hand. If the husband has not been troubled by her time with friends, then it is merely vindictive to insist that she curtail those relationships. The husband and wife have a mutual responsibility to enter into a healthy conversation, but the solution does not require that both parties play an equal role.
In the larger racial context, it is possible that the outcome of our collaborative conversations will involve minimizing the different racial dynamics of each group with the solution grounded in a colorblind mentality. Since it is important not to preordain solutions, I concede that a race-neutral solution is possible. But I seriously doubt this will happen. Given the racial ugliness in our country and the way people of color have suffered, it is unlikely they will settle for a solution that ignores the effects of historical racism and institutional bias. I think the most likely outcome is one where the roles of the races are different, although we share in the responsibility to enter into the dialogue in a respectful manner.
The path of mutual accountability is capable of leading us out of our current cycle because its focus is not purely on winning the argument. This is not to say we ignore our own concerns. Rather, we find a venue where we can air our concerns and have them heard. In return, we listen to the concerns of others. In that atmosphere of collaborative communication, we work together to find solutions we can accept. We break the cycle because we learn we cannot have everything. We cannot expect to gain domination over our political or racial opponents. But we find ways of working together. When we do that, the cycle of protest and counterprotest can be replaced by a process of communication, mutual solutions and then labor from all sides to make the solutions successful.
Why would those steeped in our previous models of colorblindness and anti-racism consider communication and compromise when they are so convinced they are in the right? Some individuals will be resistant. But they need to consider that their chances of getting everything they want are slim. Their political victories will continue to be sabotaged by their opponents. What if they could get most of what they want with their political opponents helping instead of hindering them? If we bring people into discussion and find compromises, then we gain real allies instead of inspiring opposition. The mutual accountability approach is our best effort to find stable, sustainable solutions that pull us together rather than tear us apart.
George Alan Yancey is a professor of sociology at Baylor University. He researches institutional racial diversity, racial identity, academic bias, progressive Christians and anti-Christian hostility. This essay was adapted from his book “Beyond Racial Division,” published by InterVarsity Press.