4 ms·

When I first encountered this term, I had the same reaction and it seems like a reasonable response but (like one of the replies you've received) you're assumin

When I first encountered this term, I had the same reaction and it seems like a reasonable response but (like one of the replies you've received) you're assuming your definition of racism. The definition that's usually used in sociology involves structural power and, perhaps most importantly, white supremacy. Particularly the latter point means that the term racism, in the academic context, always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy. There are still valid critiques (such as, arguably, unfalsifiablity) and, personally, I don't think the directionality built into the term help us as much as it hinders the conversation—especially given the divergence from the colloquial meaning of "racism". At the same time, though, systemic power is on the side of (certain) white people and the effects of discrimination are compounded by systemic power differentials. It seems important to bring that aspect of racism into the conversation.

sva_ 5y ago
> the term racism, in the academic context, always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy Pretty typical for Americans to make themselves the center of the definition of a basic term. Just because some academics redefine a term, doesn't make someone else's argument invalid.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  I'm not sure academics redefined it so much as the colloquial usage changed. "Racist" was originally used as an alternative form of "racialist," without a negative connotation, to describe people who believed in the superiority of a particular race. These people were white (supremacist) Americans. Academics still use the word in a similar way. Not my field (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but I believe there are other terms like "racial discrimination" that didn't come from white supremacist thought, and that can be used in academia to describe mistreatment of white people on the basis of their skin.
zozbot234 5y ago
The word "racism" strictly refers to prejudice and/or discrimination in any context where systemic power differentials are involved. White supremacy might definitely be a relevant power differential, but there are others that can be just as relevant, such as the very real power held by admissions bureaucracies in academia. This does mean that, yes, so-called 'reverse' racism in such contexts, particularly when accompanied by systemic prejudice against e.g. whites and asians (such as an implied theory that they have less "character", "well-roundedness" or "diversity" than other groups) is in fact racism.
thefz 5y ago
> The definition that's usually used in sociology involves structural power and, perhaps most importantly, white supremacy. That is 100% american. I would advise against going to Europe, the east specifically, and claim that "you can't be racist against whites". And to be rational systemic racism is just a subset of the concept of racism as a whole.
davidjytang 5y ago
> always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy. This term, reverse racism, has always confused me. What would then racism and reverse racism be defined in Japan a predominant Japanese society?
- jcuenod 5y ago
  I believe that words like "prejudice" are used instead of racism.
lobocinza 5y ago
> The definition that's usually used in sociology involves structural power and, perhaps most importantly, white supremacy. The definition in itself is racist. It's doublethink!
- jcuenod 5y ago
  This critique only works if you a priori reject the definition. Try critique on internal grounds. This is why I mentioned unfalsifiability.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    I lack the argumentative sophistication but I will try to rephrase my argument. Rewriting the meaning of terms so as they mean the opposite of what is socially/historically expected or contradictory is evil because it undermine discourse. As proposed by Habermas, norms are derived inter-subjectively in processes of argumentation between individuals. In this framework it's an presupposition that participants in communicative exchange are using the same linguistic expressions in the same way. The latter is tautological as any argument that is constructed with an unmeaningful term violates the three laws of logic: P is P; P is not non-P; either P or non-P. The externals social/historic and replaced meaning of the term doesn't matter for this analysis and just that they are contradictory. TLDR: It's not even unfalsifiable, just plainly meaningless.

sva_ 5y ago

> the term racism, in the academic context, always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy Pretty typical for Americans to make themselves the center of the definition of a basic term. Just because some academics redefine a term, doesn't make someone else's argument invalid.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
I'm not sure academics redefined it so much as the colloquial usage changed. "Racist" was originally used as an alternative form of "racialist," without a negative connotation, to describe people who believed in the superiority of a particular race. These people were white (supremacist) Americans. Academics still use the word in a similar way. Not my field (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but I believe there are other terms like "racial discrimination" that didn't come from white supremacist thought, and that can be used in academia to describe mistreatment of white people on the basis of their skin.

zozbot234 5y ago

The word "racism" strictly refers to prejudice and/or discrimination in any context where systemic power differentials are involved. White supremacy might definitely be a relevant power differential, but there are others that can be just as relevant, such as the very real power held by admissions bureaucracies in academia. This does mean that, yes, so-called 'reverse' racism in such contexts, particularly when accompanied by systemic prejudice against e.g. whites and asians (such as an implied theory that they have less "character", "well-roundedness" or "diversity" than other groups) is in fact racism.

thefz 5y ago

> The definition that's usually used in sociology involves structural power and, perhaps most importantly, white supremacy. That is 100% american. I would advise against going to Europe, the east specifically, and claim that "you can't be racist against whites". And to be rational systemic racism is just a subset of the concept of racism as a whole.

davidjytang 5y ago

> always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy. This term, reverse racism, has always confused me. What would then racism and reverse racism be defined in Japan a predominant Japanese society?

jcuenod 5y ago
I believe that words like "prejudice" are used instead of racism.

lobocinza 5y ago

> The definition that's usually used in sociology involves structural power and, perhaps most importantly, white supremacy. The definition in itself is racist. It's doublethink!

jcuenod 5y ago
This critique only works if you a priori reject the definition. Try critique on internal grounds. This is why I mentioned unfalsifiability.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  I lack the argumentative sophistication but I will try to rephrase my argument. Rewriting the meaning of terms so as they mean the opposite of what is socially/historically expected or contradictory is evil because it undermine discourse. As proposed by Habermas, norms are derived inter-subjectively in processes of argumentation between individuals. In this framework it's an presupposition that participants in communicative exchange are using the same linguistic expressions in the same way. The latter is tautological as any argument that is constructed with an unmeaningful term violates the three laws of logic: P is P; P is not non-P; either P or non-P. The externals social/historic and replaced meaning of the term doesn't matter for this analysis and just that they are contradictory. TLDR: It's not even unfalsifiable, just plainly meaningless.