My latest column for The Daily is on Catherine Hakim’s erotic capital thesis, which we discussed in this space last fall, and some of its implications. It is also an indirect response to some of my critics, who believe that my last column, which ended with the following paragraph:
One thing that is undeniably true is that American conservatives are overwhelmingly white in a country that is increasingly less so. As the number of Latinos and Asian-Americans has increased in coastal states like California, New York and New Jersey, many white Americans from these regions have moved inland or to the South. For at least some whites, particularly those over the age of 50, there is a sense that the country they grew up in is fading away, and that Americans with ancestors from Mexico or, as in my case, Bangladesh don’t share their religious, cultural and economic values. These white voters are looking for champions, for people who are unafraid to fight for the America they remember and love. It’s unfair to call this sentiment racist. But it does help explain at least some of our political divide.
The basic response to this paragraph was, “If not liking people of different groups isn’t racist, what is?” I have a narrow definition of racism: a belief in the intrinsic, innate superiority of some groups relative to others. To believe that Bengalis are on average more gregarious than, say, Finns isn’t to believe in Bengali superiority. One could, and should, also believe that this gregariousness reflects cultural practices more than genetic proclivities, though it isn’t to dismiss the (rather remote) possibility that the latter plays at least some role. And of course this brackets the question of whether gregariousness, or an affinity for racquetball or the accumulation of land as opposed to less-tangible assets, etc., should be considered a uniquely important virtue. My suspicion is that dominant groups define the qualities with which they are associated as virtuous, and evaluate members of other groups by these often rather arbitrary yardsticks. Moreover, I don’t think it is racist for, say, Tamils to prefer the company of other Tamils, even if this fellow-feeling is grounded in something other than language. Ethnocentrism might not be a praiseworthy impulse, but it is not identical to racism.
What some of my interlocutors don’t always understand is that I am not their mirror image. That is, I don’t construct my columns solely to score points. Were that the case, I wouldn’t have made an observation that would predictably lead anti-conservatives to conclude that I am either a bigot or an Uncle Tom. Rather, I write in the hope and expectation that people read people with whom they disagree to challenge their settled views. Suffice it to say, this isn’t generally the case, but I’m happy to continue behaving as though it is, as it is true of enough people to justify the effort.
To return to my more recent column, on the erotic capital thesis, I offer the following:
One reason the concept of erotic capital might make us uncomfortable is that it is very obvious that some people are born with it while others are not. Some people are born stunningly beautiful, and it takes less effort to cultivate and amplify natural beauty than to turn an ugly duckling into a swan. It is also true, however, that Bill Gates was born with prosperous, loving parents who indulged his knack for computer programming.
A better understanding of erotic capital can help us understand a number of inequalities, including racial inequalities. In a 2008 paper in the Review of Economics and Statistics, a team of economists and social psychologists conducted a speed-dating experiment with graduate students at Columbia University. They found that men were essentially indifferent to the race of the women with whom they interacted, paying far more attention to attractiveness. Women, on the other hand, were far more likely to express interest in partners of the same race, holding attractiveness constant.
When we think of how we might combat racial inequality, we tend to think of large-scale, society-wide interventions, like tough anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action programs. But strong same-race preferences arguably have much larger implications, as they present a social barrier to members of racial minorities that anti-discrimination laws can’t overcome. Only by marrying into dominant social groups can members of minority groups gain access to the most privileged and powerful social networks. Racial preferences devalue the erotic capital of some while enhancing that of others. If we come to believe that erotic capital really matters, we might come to see this phenomenon as a grave injustice.
It is easy to advocate for policy interventions that require others to act in accordance with your wishes. It is somewhat more difficult to look at our own behaviors, choices, and preferences and to consider how they might reproduce and exacerbate inequalities.
I’ve noticed that many of my web counterparts find it easy to dismiss the nostalgia I describe as racist, though it should be obvious to any observer that this is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon, and that it can’t be painted with a broad brush, which was my essential point. Might they acknowledge that same-race preferences are far more consequential in terms of their impact on society?
I should stress that I don’t think that same-race preferences of the kind I describe are anyone’s business. I also believe that we as a society don’t take the possibility that members of different cultural groups might choose to pursue different ways of life seriously enough, e.g., urban Bengalis might just prefer renting to owning a home, which inclines me to advocate for policies I see as neutral across these varying preferences. This approach has its limits. There are defensible reasons to, for example, give some preference to saving over consuming, but the decision to institutionalize these preferences should clear a high evidentiary bar.
Terrific column!
Question for you: Consider the well-known concept of being "skeeved" or "schkeeved" (derived from the Italian word "schifo") by something. My daughter, for example, is extremely skeeved by our cat throwing up a hairball.
All other considerations aside, is it racist for people of one group, say, Japanese, to be "skeeved" by a Finn (or an Eskimo or an African-American) sleeping in their guest bed, emerging from the toilet stall immediately preceding their going into it, etc.?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fear is not of change, it is of lack of stewardship.
New arrivals have to clear a high bar - not with our hapless government or our sentimental media, but with their neighbors. They must show that they will be good stewards of this wonderful land where they have chosen to settle.
It's hard to overestimate how socially egalitarian most Americans are by nature.
Have our new neighbors been educated in a culture that is socially stratified? Were they told, perhaps, that our success was not the result of strong values, a good work ethic and freedom, but instead of exploitation and "imperialism"?
Do they value civic engagement? Are they planning to only stay long enough to game the system and then jet back home?
We are committed to this land - for one thing, no other country will take us! But we take pride in what we've built, and it's so important for our new neighbors to show that they have internalized our values and will pitch in whenever we need them.
They show this by greeting neighbors, volunteering, attending community meetings, and asking "how can I help?" first and "what can you do for me?" later.
If they do that, we promise to give them a fair shake, patronize their businesses, and learn from their best practices.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother good one, that is, it achieves what you want, making me think.
The questions this raises are many.
1. Just what do you mean by "preference" in the last sentence. Prior to that (in this post), it clearly refers to the tendency of one culture to prefer A over B; distinguished from different tendencies in other cultures. But here, the word seems to mean some sort of policy, eg, encouraging people to save. Do you mean policies, like tax laws, promoting such behavior?
2. Alternatively, are you thinking of social pressures, the antithesis of state action.
3. COULD there be a genetic factor involved in the relative gregariousness of Finns and Bengalis? It could have been true that either (a) that's how the genetic deck was dealt, or (b) over time, the more gregarious in Bengal had an advantage in reproduciton over their Finnish counterparts, by fitting in well to their society. (Or both).
I don't put much stock in this, as there really hasn't been enough time, but I can't wholly dismiss it.
4. It is questionable to me that "[Sexual desire] of women, in contrast, starts at a lower level and tends to drop off steeply after age 30." That may just be true of the trend overall, but there are far too many counter examples for it to be very useful. It may help to explain population-wide trends, but any policy (official or unofficial, public or private) which is based on that assumption is guaranteed to fail, as there are too many exceptions.
5. Is it right to say "that dominant groups define the qualities with which they are associated as virtuous, and evaluate members of other groups by these often rather arbitrary yardsticks"? The possible problem with this is that it implies that we exalt those properties we already have. But no group ever understands its own properties, so at best it will exalt (explicitly) those it thinks it possesses. This means that some will still be present, implicitly, in their view of virtue (by the back door, as it were), but also, that some virtues which they do not really possess--but wish they did, and therefore convince themselves they do have--will also be present.
This can go 2 ways. (a) They can continue flouting the values they profess (pick a self-styled open minded liberal), and perhaps even redefine the term. (b) They may actually create this virtue in themselves, where it wasn't really present. (Note the change in the meaning of "gentleman" over the centuries).
It's very complicated. (I could go on, but this is already too much.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"For at least some whites, particularly those over the age of 50, there is a sense that the country they grew up in is fading away, and that Americans with ancestors from Mexico or, as in my case, Bangladesh don’t share their religious, cultural and economic values. These white voters are looking for champions, for people who are unafraid to fight for the America they remember and love. It’s unfair to call this sentiment racist. But it does help explain at least some of our political divide."
Peggy Noonan did this "over 50" thing a few weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal, although she made her remarks about "Americans" over 50 who see the country changing and don't recognize it, etc. rather than "whites" over 50.
And with all due respect Mr. Salam, I don't know that either you or Ms. Noonan have done the math on the "over 50" part.
By that I mean this: those who are "over 50" were born prior to 1961 and therefore turned 18 prior to 1979. If you were born in 1961, your very first Presidential election was the one in which Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980.
So what was this America about which the over-50 crowd is so nostalgic?
Well, it's a mixed bag:
1. Legally enforced racial segregation.
2. The Civil Rights movement.
3. The Feminist movement, including the move to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
4. Legal and cultural suppression of gays.
5. The gay rights movement.
6. Spitting on veterans returning from war.
7. Electing Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, followed by electing Jimmy Carter in 1976.
8. Stagflation.
9. The spread of the use of marijuana and hallucinogenic drugs.
10. Men wearing long hear and men and women neglecting to bathe.
11. Increased promiscuity.
12. The decision to radically increase the number of persons from Latin America, Africa and Asia living in the United States.
13. Medicare and Medicaid.
14. The expansion, from what had been created during the New Deal, of the welfare state.
15. The expansion of federal power at the expense of the states.
16. The weakening of the American military following the Vietnam War.
17. The entry into, the fighting of and the cessation of the Vietnam War.
18. Universally legalized abortion and contraception.
19. Governmentally-enforced race- and sex-based affirmative action.
20. Race and anti-war riots.
21. Domestic terrorism.
22. Calling police officers "pigs".
23. The environmental movement.
Anyway, it's a mixed bag. I'm certainly on board with the civil rights and environmental movements - not so much on the over-50s habit of spitting on veterans returning from war.
And of course I'm generalizing, but so are Ms. Noonan and Mr. Salam - after all, lots of over-50s actually fought in the Vietnam War and then were spit on by the over-50s who seem to have forgotten about how they conducted themselves back then.
Because they were stoned out of their mind.
But I'm not sure why the way in which the country is different now from the way it was in 1979 is supposed to get the "over 50" crowd - be they Americans or white Americans - all scared and frightened. Because I'm not sure that the list of stuff that they did is a list that they're properly remembering before they fall to pieces about how things have supposedly changed for the worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIndeed, a mixed bag.
But particularly for males (any race) of the age group now in their 60s, the Vietnam War was a major factor. Not only were males (only males, not females; are you paying attention, feminists?) were involuntarily sent to war.
The mere prospect of a young male being drafted affected his employment chances: Employers were less willing to provide on-the-job training for someone who might be drafted.
For those in colleges with student deferments, it was a time when obnoxious faculty could take advantage of the inability of male students to drop their course (thus becoming less than full-time, and subject to the draft if only for a few months). This, I believe, was a factor in the subsequent movement for student evaluation of faculty, with all its negative repercussions.
Then, at the time those males were trying to develop careers, they faced a glut of immigrants both educated and uneducated. Many of those retained their foreign citizenship so that if and when the employers moved offshore, the foreign employees could go there. I believe, but am not sure, that this effect was most notable for Northern Irish, so I am not being anti-white here.
Some males may recall being asked to exhibit draft cards, without probable cause to suspect any illegal activity. Nowadays, persons who are likely to be in the country illegally, and have forged documents, are ignored under sanctuary policies, for which they cannot even be asked to exhibit their legal status in the country. I wonder how many of them registered for Selective Service?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid the Columbia study of race preferences account for the women's expectation of the ability of the man to provide for her & their potential children, which would certainly be affected by the man's race?
Just curious, not trying to stir anything up. It's interesting to me to see how (justifiably) worried everyone is about the number of black women who can't find a black man who is acceptable as a mate, and who tend to blame society looking down on their hair, weight, noses, etc. And yet, the men in the Columbia study were able to "see past" race better than the women.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith all due respect, I think Bart's post is off on a tangent. For one thing, it's largely a list of SOME things we might remember. Which, if any, were part of the world we lived in (that is to say, which we actually experienced) will vary from case to case. And many things will have been left off the list. Others are misleading. I'm 58, and grew up in New York, went to college in Va, and stayed. I've never known (I' heard of, when young) legal segregation.
But in the lives we actually lived, the many of biggest changes aren't really mentioned. Such as the much greater regimentation of children. And the clear loss of a sense of job security.
And of course, manners have changed.
That said, I'm not convinced the "nostalgia" factor is so big a factor as people say. I notice it's usually attributed to those one disapproves of.
But the real question Salam is raising is--I think--not this (the nostalgia factor), but the way our values are often read as malign ("racist") when they really are not. Not all cases of ethnic bias are considered objectionable. For example, I've asked many people over the years whether this is a fault in me:
I have a French name, and am a lifelong Yankee fan. When Ron Guidry came along, he was immediately one of my favorite players. There is no doubt in my mind that ethnicity is a factor here. Is this something I should be ashamed of? Not one person has said "yes", and the blacks I've asked were, if anything, more emphatic than the whites.
I believe that is more the sort of thing Salam was thinking of, than the kind of overt political questions we normally fixate on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'm 58, and grew up in New York, went to college in Va, and stayed. I've never known (I' heard of, when young) legal segregation."
If you are 58, then you were born in or about 1953. Which means that you turned 18 in 1971.
Which means that your "world" has a sizeable number of items on the list: re-electing Richard Nixon, and then thinking that Jimmy Carter would be swell, fighting and then pulling out of Vietnam so that millions could be tortured and killed under the victorious Communists while we wrung our hands helplessly, the increased divorce rate, increased promiscuity and out-of-wedlock births, increased use of narcotics, the fight over the ERA, race riots, draft riots, the decision to increase illegal immigration and to increase legal immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America, etc. (I'm fine with legal immigration from wherever, but it's not some sort of recent phenomeonon cooked-up by the young 'uns.)
And as far as a "clear loss of job security" that supposedly exists now - you were in your 20s when the country went through the worst recession since the Great Depression.
I'm not saying that these are all your fault any more than I'm saying that it was your parents fault (since they were old enough) that interracial relationships were criminalized or that blacks were barred from white's-only schools. And of course, there was a lot of good done by the over-50s.
Only that the notion that the "over 50s" are watching some sort of sea-change in the country that leaves them alienated or confused by where the country is going is a more than a little preposterous. The America of those who are over 50 (or in your case, the over-57) was not some blissful land of happiness that is being despoiled by all the under-50 folks.
I'm not by any means arguing that things are wonderful right now. Only that the negative comparison with the past reflects amnesia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think we're talking at cross purposes here. I wasn't arguing for any kind of ideal life back then. What I had in mind is, that much that goes on during our lives, doesn't really go on in our lives. Yes, we had legally mandated segregation when I was born. But given where I lived until 1971, it was a matter of debate, not of my experience. (Not that race relations, outside of what the law says, haven't changed greatly. Think of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. A shocker, in its day.)
And that's the hub. When we talk of how people perceive the world, and how it's changing, it isn't the world events which take 1st place. It's what they've experienced, mostly, which forms our attitudes. That's why I referred to "sense of job security", rather than job security, per se. People did think you'd get a job and keep it; that was the expected norm. It isn't now.
The whole question is much more involved than either you or I have expressed. But the entire "nostalgia" argument depends on the fact that people see something in their lives as being lost. And of course, they're probably right, as something is always being lost.
The only point, again, on which I really disagree with you is your apparent belief that the sort of events which make the news are front and center. To my mind, they aren't.
The sad thing is that so many of my fellow boomers seem to see something missing from their kids' lives, compared to ours. But they cannot see that, if that's true, it's because we made our lives differently than our parents made theirs.
Take--and this is something I hear commented on a lot--the unconscious freedom of childrens' play, which so many of us knew in the 50's & 60's. You don't see so much of that now, it's too controlled and too organized. But what we kids didn't realize was that we weren't really off on our own. Given that so many mothers didn't have jobs, we were in fact under the eyes of someone's mom, all the time. I am not arguing for excluding women from the workforce, not at all. But for the gain in their freedom, that was part of the cost.
Really, to get a good feel for this (and I mean "feel"), I recommend Jean Renoir's 2 masterpieces, Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game. He had a strong sense that even desired changes entail the loss of something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll I can say is that while I like Hakim's thesis, I liked it even better when it came with a Hugo Burnham backbeat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDiscussing accusations of racism against conservatives without discussing the fact that the base of the the Republican party is old white Southern men, for whom living in an apartheid society and seeing that society overturned was a core experience of their youth, is ... let's say an intellectual exercise at best. When Perry talks secession and "they better not come down here", when Reagan kicks off his "Revolution"-ary campaign this way: External Link
, the historical context of white-black relations in the American south IS the story. Now, you can interpret that story in various ways, some of which downplay race. But if you don't address it many of us are going to find your comments irrelevant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewell, it's simply a fact that some groups are inherently better at some things than others so that's not a good definition. racism could be defined as "not giving an INDIVIDUAL a chance based on what group they're in." or something like that
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe white people who complain about the country that they knew fading away are like people on death row who dont want to die but dont ask themselves what brought them to this predicament...committing the crime of living beyond their means, running up a debt of $14.3 trilliion, 8% of which is owned by the commie Chinese. Latinos are moving in for work or welfare. Many Asians are moving in by buying up property with the US treasuries they own. Many whites are afraid that increasing number of white men will marry Asian womean and their race will be diluted. Tough luck! If you commit the crime you do the time. If you commit murder you pay with your life. Inability to pay off the debt means you loose your sovereignty and your right to live as a homogeneous all white society free from dilution! Case closed!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse