tit}... .: _
.V.=_..,,€Rfi

‘ 93.1.th

{1:151

,ufiéwaaiirwmiufifi.
: a... V : - . .

8.. ‘M.

H :7”me

, . V V . 35mm

. V V V 5):».
. . , ‘ . V ".9..HW. .
. V .. . fiumfiwpwmnxu. NWT 3!
, .V. . ’ld .. 0...: . ..
L. 25. :3. . Alb... 5?...th a“ xs

. . .. . 2.! :3“. 9 i. ..

Cm” . V .

it?
V .1. 1m. .h z ,

, in
#2. up.

.

..¢
$3
3 , u a i
. I :0.
.,.. I: .3.
. .15.; e? :
é. .
2,.-. V

?

3.3.!“ V
x.

V V . . .
, . Jan. .
, . a .
, . "W .
3..
z . I! 15. .
.995... u: . .

. .7
3.1.“. 3.549%
in 3 4,111322:
65%.... E. e

94 WNW“.

.v
at
1V3 .. 3:;
9, I: d.

a
r“?

I. It‘vfl
? :n
, 43$

.
:5.

a) 5)..»

9 4

V I: . .. V n.
5:? d1.

.5
us . thvxz
.. V . v.31”... Intuar z.
r.

z.

 

xv

v‘e
3 V,

5
L
I

..
1'31: 1'12:
flint. 3.2.91...
:3}?

,
i’.

 

 

V..., uxvdng 53:”. fifiuflnflnflg .ou

. .7 y .7. xi...

1 .J .2 rt! ‘I

LIBRARIES V
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48324—1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

DEVELOPING EYES TO SEE:
A STUDY OF A MULTI-CONGREGATIONAL
ANTI-RACISM INITIATIVE

presented by

Gail Gunst Heffner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Resource Development and

Urban Studies

.A_-.---n—a-o-I-l-l-l-I-O-I-I-I-I-l-l-l-l-O-I-O-I-I-I‘I-C-O-I-l-l-C-C-l-¢.

 

 

 

’7‘ a Mgr Professofis Signature

Mag «2,2005

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

.-._.-.-A-I-0-o---.-----o-o-.—_.-

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

JAMEZWDW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2105 c'JCl eDuo. .15‘

DEVELOPING EYES TO SEE: A STUDY OF A MULTI-CONGREGATIONAL
ANT I-RACISM INITIATIVE

By

Gail Gunst Heffner

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Departments of Resource Development and Urban Studies

2005

ABSTRACT

DEVELOPING EYES TO SEE: A STUDY OF A MULTI-CONGREGATIONAL
ANTI-RACISM INITIATIVE

By
Gail Gunst Heffner

This research contributes to the newly emerging literature on racialization and
religion. It demonstrates how racial phenomena are structured in the historically-specific
settings of three local congregations and examines how particular practices and
institutional procedures produce racial inequality. The focus of this study has been to
understand the lived-experiences of race for people of color and for whites in these
congregations, particularly giving voice to those who been Silenced in the past. It
explores how differential access to power based on race leads to a differential distribution
of resources within these congregations and how power given to certain groups
eventually leads to privileges and resources flowing to some but not others. This
differential access to power is revealed in: 1) who has influence within the congregations
and whose preferences count in the primary functions of the congregation, including
worship, programming, and outreach; 2) how leadership is determined and who has
authority to make decisions; 3) who has access to information and how that affects the
control of resources; 4) how accountability is handled within the structures of the
congregations. These findings provide concrete examples of how institutional racism in
the contemporary setting of the local congregation perpetuates a racialized society.

This study also explores how institutional racism is reinforced by internalized
messages of racial superiority or racial oppression as revealed in the language

respondents use and the rhetorical positions they assume when describing their

experience of race in their congregations. An important finding of this research is that
whites within these congregations need to develop a growing consciousness of how their
race affects their own daily lives as well as the life of the congregation. Open and honest
dialogue about the connection between institutional racism and internalized racism is
very important if there is to be any hope of dismantling it.

This research has been approached from the perspective of a scholar-practitioner.
It is embedded within and contributes to a body of literature that recognizes that racism is
not static based merely on some distant past but is constantly changing and such change
is viewed as a normal component of the racialized system. Further the project has
immediate relevance to a community and it is motivated by a call for action. Examining
institutional racism in the congregation offers the possibility for action beyond the church
as well. For the study participants, their experience within the congregation around race
represents a microcosm of those encountered in society-at-large. The findings of this
study can also inform scholars who seek to understand institutional racism in other
organizations by providing a framework for analyzing both institutional aspects of racism
as well as internalized aspects of racism. Thus, the research holds significance for faith-
based institutions as well as for policymakers and scholars interested in bridging race and

class barriers and establishing a more equitable world.

Copyright by
GAIL GUNST HEFFNER
2005

Dedicated to the memory of Dr. S. Burton Gunst, who guided, modeled, and shepherded
me towards excellence.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been in the making for a long time. Family members, colleagues,
teachers, students, and many friends have been critical to its completion. I have benefited
greatly from good teachers who have challenged me to think critically and deeply, to
probe and ask questions and to not be satisfied with simplistic solutions to complex
problems. I especially thank Dr. Kimberly Chung, advisor—extraordinaire, who has
walked closely with me through this project and known when to push and when to be
quiet, when to challenge and when to affirm and all along the way has moved this work
towards excellence. I have learned many things from three scholars at Michigan State
University who have served as my guidance committee, Dr. Frank Fear, Dr. A. Allan
Schmid, and Dr. John Schweitzer. Each of them is a gifted scholar-practitioner and I
have gained a great deal from their insights, their skills and their example. I have also
profited from my collaboration with a small group of fellow MSU graduate students
(affectionately called the ‘Research Chix’) who have read my work and challenged me to
write with focus and purpose. My appreciation and thanks go to Sherill Baldwin, Alice
Diebel, and Lexi Hansen, for the important role they have played in this process.

I have also been fortunate to be embedded in an academic community, Calvin
College, where faith, teaching, scholarship and service are not only emphasized
individually but are seen as part of an integrated whole. I have benefited from rich
dialogue and interaction with both faculty and staff colleagues and students and I am
particularly grateful for the opportunity to work in an environment which values lively

intellectual work and deep faith. Two Calvin colleagues, Dr. Claudia Beversluis and Dr.

vi

J anel Curry have encouraged me all along the way, acting sometimes as a sounding
board, sometimes as cheerleaders, but always as mentors and fiiends.

My research has been enriched and deepened by the insights and honest feedback
from two peer reviewers, who as scholars and as women of color have guided me in new
directions. Dr. Denise Isom and Dr. Michelle Loyd-Paige have shaped my thinking and
shifted my understanding of my topic in profound ways. For their generosity of time and
patience and for their friendship, I am deeply grateful. A special thanks to Donna
Romanowski for her excellent editorial assistance and for her inspiring example to
dismantle racism.

I especially want to express my appreciation and gratitude to the members of the
three congregations who agreed to be interviewed and questioned about a topic of great
importance but a topic that evokes complicated and deep emotions. To the members of
the congregational anti-racism teams, who served as research collaborators, I owe a great
deal, for their willingness to be vulnerable and speak when sometimes it would be easier
to remain silent. It is my hope that the findings of this research will play a small role in
fiIrthering the work to dismantle racism in these congregations.

Special gratitude goes to close fi‘iends near and far who have encouraged me to
persevere and to my family who has created the context from which my life grows,
especially for my children, Andrew, Daniel and Elisabeth who have given my work new
meaning. I hope the world you inherit and work to build will bring an end to racial
injustice. The ways my husband, Ken, has inspired me and been a true partner in all

aspects of our daily life, are too many to name. I am grateful beyond measure.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 - Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
Continuing racial inequality and the role of the religious community .................... 1
Statement of problem ............................................................................................... 6
Significance .............................................................................................................. 7
Organization of the study ......................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2 — Literature Review ........................................................................................... 10
The changing notion of ‘race’ ................................................................................ 10
Historical and theoretical perspectives .................................................................. 13
Rational individualist ....................................................................................... 13
Institutionalist .................................................................................................. 14
Marxist perspective .......................................................................................... 15
Non-Eurocentric culturalist .............................................................................. 16
Internal colonialist ........................................................................................... 16
Racial formation perspective ........................................................................... 18
Racialized social systems perspective ............................................................. 20
Race and religion ................................................................................................... 23
Religion and racialization theory ........................................................................... 25
The need for current study ..................................................................................... 28
Chapter 3 — Setting and Context of the Research .............................................................. 31
Grand Rapids, Michigan: A unique setting for the study of race .......................... 31
The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA) ............................. 34
The history of race relations in the Christian Reformed Church ........................... 36
The anti-racism initiative within the Christian Reformed Church ......................... 38
The research setting: The congregational anti-racism initiative

within the CRC .......................................................................................... 41
Chapter 4 - Methods .......................................................................................................... 43
Research paradigm underlying the chosen methodology ...................................... 43
Chosen methodology ................................................................................. 49
Overview of study design ...................................................................................... 51
Data collection ....................................................................................................... 53
Phase I ........................................................................................................ 53
Phase H ....................................................................................................... 55
Sampling .................................................................................................... 55
How information was collected ................................................................. 57

How information was organized: Field notes/joumal file/
memos to self ................................................................................. 59
Sustained engagement/saturation ............................................................... 6O

viii

Data analysis methods: audit trail .......................................................................... 61

Data processing/cleaning the data ............................................................. 62
Code development and code-checking ...................................................... 62
Thematic analysis and displays .................................................................. 64
Validity of the findings .......................................................................................... 66
Descriptive validity .................................................................................... 67
Interpretive validity .................................................................................... 68
Theoretical validity .................................................................................... 69
Peer review ................................................................................................. 70
Ethical considerations ................................................................................ 71
Reflexivity .................................................................................................. 73
Positionality ............................................................................................... 76
Summary ................................................................................................................ 79
Chapter 5 — What You See Depends on Where You Stand: Institutional
Racism in the Church ................................................................................. 81
Racialization and religion ..................................................................................... 81
Variation in perception and understanding of racism ............................................ 84
Analysis of institutional racism in congregations ................................................. 88
Who has influence and whose preferences count ..................................... 88
Leadership structures ................................................................................. 97
Access to information and control of resources ......................................... 99
Differential accountability processes ....................................................... 109
Summary .............................................................................................................. 113
Chapter 6 — Lost Opportunities: The Impact of Intemalized Racism .............................. 118
Understanding internalized racism ...................................................................... 118
Differing Standpoints: Examining racial rhetoric and how it reflects
internalized racism ....................................................................... 124
Presumed racial superiority as internalized by whites ............................. 125
Presumed racial inferiority and oppression as internalized by
people of color ............................................................................. 137
The impact of ‘color-blind’ racism on all people .................................... 148
Summary .............................................................................................................. 152
Chapter 7 - Signposts of Hope ........................................................................................ 157
Challenges ........................................................................................................... 157
Confronting Intemalized Racism through Caucusing ......................................... 159
Confronting Institutional Racism through Institutional Analysis
and Strategizing ....................................................................................... 166
Recommendations ................................................................................................ 169
Recommendations for practice ............................................................... 170
Recommendations for research ............................................................... 175
Limitations of Current Study and need for further study .................................... 176

ix

Chapter 8 — Conclusion .................................................................................................... 179

Emerging understanding ...................................................................................... 179
Summary of key findings ..................................................................................... I81
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 1 86
Appendix A—Individual Interview Guide: Church Leaders ............................... 187
Appendix B—Group Interview Guide: Each Anti-Racism Team ....................... 188
Appendix C—Group Interview Guide: Each Congregation-at-large .................. 189
Appendix D—Individual Interview Guide: Caucus Leaders ............................... 190
Appendix E—Group Interview Guide: Anti-Racism Team Leaders ................... 191
Appendix F—Coding Table ................................................................................. 192
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 201

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1- Overview of Research Design ............................................................................. 52

Table 2 —Appendix F—Coding Table .............................................................................. 192

xi

Chapter 1 -Introduction

Racial inequality is ‘a reality enjoyed, but not acknowledged, a privilege lived in, but unknown. '
from The Social Construction of Whiteness (1993)

Continuing Racial Inequality and the Role of the Religious Community

Racial inequality has characterized the history of the United States since its
earliest days. A number of scholars have argued that race has the power to provide
opportunities for some and to deny opportunities for others because the United States is a
society organized by race—that is, the US. is a racialized society (Bonilla-Silva 1996,
2001, 2003; Frankenberg 1993; Emerson and Smith 2000). A racialized society is a
society where race matters profoundly for differences in life opportunities, life
experiences, and social relationships and can be framed in structural terms. Bonilla-Silva
(1996) maintains that “racialized social systems are societies that allocate differential
economic, political, social and even psychological rewards to groups along racial lines;
lines that are socially constructed” (Bonilla-Silva 1996: 474). Thus a racial hierarchy is
implied with some people having advantages and privilege and others facing deprivation

and disadvantage.

The scholarly analyses of racialization powerfully demonstrate how all aspects of
American society are organized by race. Racialization has been documented in income
and wealth distribution, education, health, music, television viewing pattems, even
religious affiliation (Hilfiker 2002; Emerson and Smith 2000; Hurst 1998; Oliver and
Shapiro 1995; Binder 1993; Winslow 1992). This framework of a racialized society is
substantially different from notions of the race “problem” as being rooted in some

inherent weakness in people of color themselves. Racial discrimination has been deemed

illegal and racism in American culture is not as overt as it once was. However it has been
argued that racism is not merely individual, overt prejudice but rather the collective
misuse of power that results in diminished life chances for some racial groups (Bamdt
1991). Because racialization is embedded within the everyday Operation of institutions,
this fiamework suggests that people need not intend their actions to contribute to racial
division and inequality for their actions to do so (Emerson and Smith 2000).

Some scholars argue that religious institutions hold a unique potential to confront
racial inequality because of their ethical and moral convictions (Conde-Frazier et a1.
2004; De Young et. a1. 2003). This dissertation explores the relationship between
religious institutions and racial inequality. It examines how racialization can be
perpetuated despite people’s verbalized intentions to the contrary by examining one
institution—the local congregation—assumed to have the potential to bridge race and

class cleavages.

During the past decade, a great deal has been written about the role of the
religious community in confronting racial inequality and meeting the social and
economic needs of people (Smidt 2003; Warren 2001; Bane, Coffin, and Thiemann 2000;
Cnaan 1999). Scholars argue that churches and faith-based organizations operating in
urban areas have been more successful than others in organizing residents for action
because religious institutions are among the few settings that still generate trust (Wood
1997). However, in order to be successful with disadvantaged communities, faith—based
institutions need to recognize and be infused with a deep consciousness of how deeply

raCe cuts through America (White 2000: 262).

A racialized society is maintained in subtle ways because people of color face
racial stigma. Racial stigma is an awareness of the racial ‘otherness’ of people of color
which is embedded in the social consciousness of the American nation due to slavery and
its aftermath (Loury 2002). Racial stigma, even more so than racial discrimination,
contributes to the enduring racial disadvantage that people of color experience. Loury
(2002) argues that subtle processes are at work which perpetuate racial stigma and to
properly study contemporary racial inequality scholars must identify these subtle
processes in order to uncover the deeper, structural causes of the disadvantages that

people of color face in the United States (Loury 2002:7).

The literature suggests that poverty often falls along racial lines and urban poverty
in the US. is intimately tied to the issue of race (West 2001; Massey and Denton 1993).
Historical, social and economic analyses of racial differences do reveal specific
mechanisms, practices, and social relations which have produced racial inequality
resulting in persistent poverty (Sugrue 1996; Darden, Hill, Thomas and Thomas 1987).

In a collection of essays about welfare reform a group of Harvard faculty explored
the ways in which religious ideas and religious institutions have influenced society’s

capacity to feel and respond to a commitment to the poor.

The promise of religious communities to play a crucial role in revitalizing the
social fabric and re-knitting the social safety net comes fi'om three potential roles:
creating community; shaping moral dialogue; and participating with other
institutions in social provision. . .Faith-based organizations are in a unique
position in American society to create community, both through their religious
commitment to the brotherhood and Sisterhood of all humanity and through their
very practical activities of bringing people together. . .Religious communities are
in a unique position to help shape the moral dialogue about social caring and just
provision for all persons. ..Re1igious communities also have an important role in
participating with others to actually do the work of feeding the hungry, Sheltering
the homeless and welcoming the stranger—and providing support and services to
both welfare and working families (Bane, Coffin, and Thiemann 2000: 11-13).

What is clear from this literature is that religious institutions play a significant, if
little understood, role in poor communities (Foley, McCarthy, and Chaves 2001). Many
recognize a unique potential role for the religious community to play in bridging the
barriers of class and race in American society, yet little is known about how religious

institutions actually serve as a bridge across race and class cleavages.

In fact, the literature suggests a contradiction—that the religious community has
actually helped to perpetuate segregation between races (Emerson and Smith 2000). For
example, Robert Wuthnow (1992) found that religiously active individuals participate in
many groups and get involved in community issues. However, these groups and
activities tend to be insular and homogeneous, leading to greater separation by race and
class rather than leading to social integration. Wuthnow concluded that congregations
tend to be places where people of the same race and social class come together to worship

and therefore, their social activities also tend to be segregated.

This raises a question about how such barriers can be overcome. Some scholars
argue that larger institutional or structural forces are at work which perpetuate the racial
divide even when individual efforts at racial reconciliation are effective (DeYoung et. a1
2003; Emerson and Smith 2000; Bonilla-Silva 1996). For example, multi-racial churches
have been established through the building of personal cross-racial fiiendships and
reconciliation efforts (Perkins and Rice 1993). But these reconciled relationships do not
necessarily lead to broader systemic change. If it is possible to contribute to inequality

and racial injustice without intending it and/or without being conscious of it, this raises

important questions about how to change such a dire Situation.

When we examine institutional racism, the issue of power must be

emphasized. . .As our nation oppresses its people of color, our personal bigotry

and prejudice do not cause the primary damage. Rather, the damage is done by

racism that has been institutionally empowered and is administered in seemingly

impersonal ways (Bamdt 1991: 77).

Because individualism holds such sway in the US. (Bellah et. al 1985), some suggest that
one of the challenges we face is our limited ability to analyze the structural nature of our
racialized society (Emerson and Smith 2000). Structures include the political, economic
and cultural institutions that act as constraints or enablers which shape whose preferences
count (Schmid 1987). Some scholars maintain the fundamental weakness of certain
policies to alleviate racial inequality or poverty is the reliance on individual efforts to
combat a social problem that is structural and institutional in nature (Meyer, 2000;
Sugrue 1996; Massey and Denton 1993). Americans find it difficult to frame problems
or solutions in structural terms. Thus, we cannot address the race issue in the United
States without analyzing the institutions and structures that serve the interests of some at
the expense of others.

Little empirical evidence exists which documents how bridging across race and
class barriers can occur. Furthermore, there is little written on the role the religious
community plays in this bridging. The framework suggested above maintains that
building bridges cannot happen without an analysis of the institutions and systems which
misuse power and marginalize people of color. The literature does not document how
this analysis could occur, nor does it adequately articulate the need for such an analysis.

Furthermore, scholars who recognize the racialized nature of American society

argue that for change to happen more work needs to be done to reveal the ways that

dominant perspectives distort the realities of the ‘Other’ in an effort to maintain power

relations that continue to disadvantage those who are locked out of the mainstream
(Ladson-Billings 2000). More research is needed to unmask how the dominant
perspective ignores and even misrepresents the experience of nonwhite people in
American society. Critical race theory (CRT) has emerged since the Civil Rights era as
an important research paradigm to uncover and make visible how racism operates.
CRT begins with the notion that racism is ‘normal, not aberrant in American
society’ (Delgado, 1995, p. xiv), and because it is so enmeshed in the fabric of
the US. social order, it appears both normal and natural to people in this
society... racism is a permanent fixture of American life. Therefore, the strategy
of those who fight for racial social justice is to unmask and expose racism in all
its various permutations. CRT departs from mainstream scholarship by sometimes
employing storytelling to analyze the myths, presuppositions, and received

wisdoms that make up the common culture about race and that invariably render
blacks and other minorities one down (Ladson-Billings 2000:264).

Statement of Problem

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the role of religious institutions in
bridging the racial divide by seeking to uncover and make explicit how racism operates at
a congregational level. Religious institutions have the potential to make an important
contribution to shaping moral dialogue, creating community, and participating with other
institutions in social provision to help alleviate poverty. In particular, this dissertation
explores how race fimctions within the local congregation by examining three local
congregations who have been part of an organized antiracism initiative. How do the
participants in these congregations understand the notion of ‘race’ and what meaning
does it have in their lives and in the life of their congregation? The focus in this research
has been to understand the lived-experiences of race for people of color and for whites in

these congregations, with a particular focus on giving voice to those who have been

silenced in the past in keeping with critical theory. The work has been guided by two

primary research questions which evolved over time.

1) In what ways has race affected or influenced a person ’s involvement in the
congregation ? In what ways do the structures within the congregation
contribute to institutional racism, thus reinforcing a racialized society?
This first question seeks to identify and characterize racism, distinguishing between
individual racism and institutional racism within the congregations by analyzing the
structures that powerfully shape the congregation. AS the research proceeded, it became
apparent that much of what was being explored appears to be hidden to white people.
People of color, on the other band, could articulate their lived experience of race and
racism and thus, allowing them to give ‘voice’ to their perspectives was an important
component of the research. This led to a deeper exploration of how and why racism is
hidden to whites and in particular to an exploration of the connection between
internalized racism and institutional raciSm. Thus the second research question emerged.
2) How has racism been internalized by all people in a racialized society? How

do notions of presumed racial superiority/inferiority support and reinforce
institutional racism ?

The second question examines how messages about race and our racial position have
been internalized in deep, yet subtle ways. Becoming aware of and conscious of the tacit
assumptions we hold is a necessary first step in the dismantling of racism. Without facing
intemalized racism, institutional racism cannot be confronted.
Significance

This thesis, written in the Department of Resource Development and Urban

Studies, has important implications for the scholar-practitioner. It is embedded within

and contributes to a body of literature that recognizes that racism is not static based
merely on some distant past, but is constantly changing and such change is viewed as a
normal component of the racialized system. Further, the project has immediate
relevance to a community and it is motivated by a call for action. The dual scholar-
practitioner focus of this work represents one of the unique strengths of the Department
of Resource Development.

This research contributes to the literature on racial inequality in American society
by examining one institution—the local congregation—assumed to have the potential to
bridge race and class cleavages. It furthers our understanding about how faith-based
institutions that usually perpetuate racialization can become a force to make structural
change to undo it. It also documents the significant challenges of this work. By exploring
the congregation in-depth, this study demonstrates how specific practices and structures
within an institution either confront or reinforce institutional racism. Finally, this study
also documents a growing recognition of the relationship between institutional racism
and internalized racism, which is insidious and destructive because of the subtlety of its
power. This is significant because of the widespread assumption that churches are one of
the few institutions in American society that can potentially bridge race differences. This
research demonstrates the difficulty of such bridging without serious structural analysis
and also intentional work to identify how racism has been internalized subtly. These are
necessary steps in dismantling racism and dismantling institutional racism is a crucial
step in poverty reduction in American communities. Examining how institutional racism
exists in the congregation is a microcosm of the larger society and has implications for

broader social change. This research holds significance for faith-based institutions as well

as for policymakers and scholars interested in bridging race and class barriers and

establishing a more equitable world.

Organization of the Study

To set the stage for this study, Chapter 2 examines the literature on the historical
and theoretical perspectives on the changing notion of ‘race’ as well as explores the
literature on religion and race. The focus of Chapter 3 is on the setting and context for
this study as it is embedded in an ongoing antiracism initiative in a historically-Specific
context (as called for by Bonilla-Silva and others). Epistemological, methodological, and
ethical considerations are reviewed in Chapter 4 as well as data collection and data
analysis methods. The next two chapters are empirical chapters in which findings are
shared: Chapter 5 is an exploration of how racism functions within the congregations
with a particular focus on institutional racism as described in the lived-experience of
people of color. Chapter 6 is an exploration of how internalized racism affects both
people of color and whites within the congregations and serves as a foundation or pillar
for institutional racism. Signposts of hope are explored in Chapter 7, including a
discussion of initial steps the congregations are taking to confront both institutional
racism and internalized racism. Chapter 7 also includes some recommendations for fiiture
research and action. The concluding chapter, Chapter 8, includes a summary of key
findings as well as some discussion of the limitations of this research and need for further

study.

Chapter 2- Literature Review

My basic aim in life: to speak the truth to power
with love
so that the quality of everyday life for ordinary people in enhanced and
white supremacy is stripped of its authority and legitimacy.
from Race Matters (2001)

The Changing Notion of ‘Race ’

The notion of ‘race’ has been a contested term within the American experience
for decades and it has held different meanings in different time periods in history. At one
time it was strongly believed that ‘race’ could be defined and explained in terms of
biological differences revealed in obvious physical differences. Identifying distinct
human groups through physical appearance dates back centuries but the emergence of a
modern concept of race does not occur until the rise of Europe and the anival of
Europeans in the Americas (Omi and Winant, 1994:61). Spurred by the Enlightenment
and the desire for scientific classification, scholars in the 18th and 19m centuries attempted
to identify and rank variations of humankind in a racial hierarchy. Determining which
characteristics constitute race or which markers are selected to construct a racial category
are matters of human choice. Since these markers and categories are not predetermined
by any biologic factors and evolve over time, racial categories are historical products and
are often contested (Cornell and Hartmann 1998:24). Seeing race as essentially a
biological concept is no longer the dominant framework by which social scientists
approach the issue of race.

Race is now widely conceived of as a socially constructed category which means
that notions of racial difference are human creations rather than essential or biological

categories.

10

Most of what we experience as “real” is a cultural creation. In other words, it’s
made up, even though we don’t experience it that way. . .ThiS process allows us to
believe that something like “race” actually points to a set of clear and
unambiguous categories into which pe0ple fall, ignoring the fact that the
definition of various races changes all the time and is riddled with inconsistencies
and overlapping boundaries. But when the stakes are privilege and power,
dominant groups are quite willing to ignore such inconsistencies so long as the

result is a continuation of their privilege (Johnson 2001: 21,23).

Further what matters in these understandings of race is that physical traits are taken to
signify something of import within a particular context. Race is about embodied social
signification (Loury 2002:21) and it is always a social and historical process which
continues to play a fundamental role in structuring and representing the social world
(Omi and Winant, 1994:55).

To begin this review of the literature, we must first understand how racism,
individual, institutional and systemic, has functioned to ascribe power and status to one
group of people while simultaneously functioning to oppress and control another group of
people. Different scholars use different terminology in describing various manifestations
of racism. For example, some use structural, institutional, and systemic racism almost
interchangeably as a contrast to individual racism. For this particular study the focus will
be on structural and institutional racism.

Structures are part of institutions that shape the opportunities available to
particular people in particular situations. They can be formal or informal; they may exist
consciously or unconsciously as in habits of the mind (Schmid 2004: 17). Institutions
firnction to order relationships among people and define their rights, their privileges, and
their responsibilities (Schmid 2004:6). Racism may exist at any level but structural and

institutional racism are not exactly the same and it is helpful to keep these distinctions in

mind as we review the scholarly literature.

11

Structural and institutional racism in our day can be understood only in the light
of the deliberate decisions of the past-«decisions that provide the foundation for racism
today. The nature of American racism has characteristics, which are similar to other
nations, but it also has characteristics which are unique to the American setting. Racism
continues to be a persistent and pervasive problem despite legislative efforts to make
racial discrimination illegal. In looking at the US. historical record it is possible to
identify that one system of racial exploitation has always replaced the former. Consider
slavery followed by the Reconstruction period followed by Jim Crow laws followed by
civil rights legislation. Despite gradual legal changes, racial oppression continues in the
United States. European whites continually seek to control and dominate people of color.
And this racism continues to affect nearly every area of national life (Loury 2002;
Johnson 2001; West 2001). “Past efforts to change and improve this situation have been
inadequate and incomplete. For the most part, racism has become more deeply
imbedded, more carefully disguised, and more difficult to eradicate” (Bamdt 1991: 20).

This chapter is organized under four broad headings: 1) Historical and theoretical
frameworks/ perspectives 2) Race and religion 3) Religion and racialization theory 4)
The need for the current study. It is important to see how current notions of race and
racism have arisen historically as well as how the main theoretical frameworks have
emerged and provide a context for the current study. The earliest scholars of race tended
to ignore institutional racism which is a central aspect of racism. Being able to analyze
the structural aspects of racism is an important foundation for understanding how racism
functions in American society and as we will see the racialized social systems perspective

has made valuable contributions to the literature. We will also examine scholarly gaps in

12

the literature, particularly in the study of race and religion and why the current study is

needed.

Historical and Theoretical Perspectives

A number of historical and theoretical perspectives describe the social science
enterprise that is used to explain race in the American context. These perspectives differ
in their philosophical foundations and therefore differ in their analysis of the problem and
proposed solutions. It is possible to trace the progression of race and racism theories over
the last 50 years to gain a sense of how theory has impacted social, economic and
political policy and practice.
Rational individualist perspective The paradigm that undergirds neoclassical economic
theory—rational individualism based on maximized self-interest—has had a significant
influence on how racism is defined and perceived in American society (Becker 1957;
Sowell 1981). This paradigm fails to acknowledge the impact of culture or
institutionalization on racism, but it has played a role in defining racism. It tends to
reduce discrimination to individual ‘tastes’ that guide choices made by consumers or
other economic agents. The mainstream perspective regarding race is one where racism is
seen as an ideology or set of beliefs that leads individual people to develop prejudice,
defined as “negative attitudes towards an entire group of people” (Schaefer 1990: 53)
which then is actualized in discriminatory practices against racial minorities. This
ideological perspective of rational individualism has reinforced the most popularized and
widely-held notion that racism is personal prejudice, beliefs and attitudes held by
individuals that cause them to discriminate against others on the basis of physical

appearance (Pettigrew 1958; Katz 1976; Sniderman 1985; Steele 1990; 1998; Murray

13

1994; Lasch-Quinn 2001). This view suggests that racism develops when personal
opinion and individual prejudice are codified and enforced as societal behavior. Racial
prejudice is transformed into racism when one racial group becomes so powerful and
dominant that it is able to control another group and to enforce the controlling group’s
biases (Bamdt 1991 :29). The dominant criticism of this perspective argues that seeing
racism as primarily beliefs, attitude and behaviors of individual people fails to
acknowledge the systemic nature of racism and prevents a deep understanding of how
societies can be built and maintained on a racial hierarchy. “Rational individualists fail
to identify the way organizational hierarchies constrain individual action and affect
incentives” (Franklin 1991).

Institutionalist perspective In contrast to those in the rational individualism tradition
are scholars who claim that racism is more than personal prejudice or bigotry. They
articulate that despite the apparent reduction in individual people’s beliefs and attitudes
about race in the United States, institutions are in place which reinforce a dominant racial
group at the expense of subordinate racial group(s). Racism structures a society so that
the prejudices of one racial group are taught, perpetuated, and enforced to the benefit of
the dominant group and at the expense of less powerful groups. This institutionalist
framework for understanding racism emerged as a result of the struggle of racial
minorities in the US. in the 1960s and this perspective distinguishes between individual
racism and institutional racism: overt racist acts by individuals versus racial outcomes
that result from the normal operation of American institutions (Carmichael and Hamilton

1967; Barndt 1991).

Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two, closely related forms: individual

14

whites acting against individual blacks, and acts by the total white community
against the black community. We call these individual racism and institutional
racism. The first consists of overt acts by individuals, which cause death, injury
or the violent destruction of property. . .The second type is less overt, far more
subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. . .[it]
originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and
thus receives far less public condemnation that the first type (Carmichael and

Hamilton l967:4).

The most concise definition of racism among authors within this tradition is that racism
equals personal prejudice plus power (Chesler 1976; Bamdt 1991). Chesler, for
example, suggests that racism involves institutional procedures that create and/or
perpetuate sets of advantages or privileges for whites and exclusions or deprivations for
nonwhites. This requires an ideology of explicit or implicit superiority of one racial
group over another plus the institutional power to implement that ideology in social
operations (Chesler 1976: 22).

Several theorists have argued that though this perspective has deepened our
understanding of American racism, it does not pose an adequate theoretical challenge to
the dominant individualist conceptualization of racism held in the social sciences because
it seems to reduce racism to everything done by whites (Carmichael and Hamilton 1967)
and it fails to recognize the multifaceted nature of the debate about racism (Miles 1993).
Marxist perspective Another analytical tradition which offers a conflicting view on
racism is a Marxist perspective. Within a Marxist framework, class and class struggle are
seen as the central organizing principle for society and as such race and racism is seen as
secondary to class (Cox 1948; Bonacich 1980; Franklin 1991). “Race prejudice is a
social attitude propagated among the public by an exploiting class for the purpose of

stigmatizing some group as inferior so that the exploitation of either the group itself or its

resources may both be justified” (Cox 1948: 393). This tradition fails to recognize the

15

role race plays in actual racial strife and assumes conflict is always based on the
competing interests of the bourgeoisie and the working-class. “Racism leading to forms
of discrimination in the radical or Marxian account is commonly focused on work site
relations and is assumed beneficial to the capitalist class as a whole, a class that has the
interests and power to reproduce the racial climate conducive to its profit-driven needs.
The bottom line in this argument is that racism is determined by the dominant class in
order to project its interests and privileges” (Franklin 1991: xviii). Scholars who critique
this framework accuse it of class reductionism (Bonilla-Silva 2001) and claim that “racial
dynanrics must be understood as determinants of class relationships and indeed class
identities, not as mere consequences of these relationships” (Omi and Winant 1994).
Non-Eurocentric culturalist perspective Two other theoretical perspectives which
emerged in the wake of the Civil Rights era deserve mention: non-Eurocentric
culturalism and internal colonialism. This first of these perspectives advocates the need
for nonwhites to define themselves rather than be defined by whites. “Black people must
redefine themselves, and only they can do that. Throughout this country, vast segments of
the black communities are beginning to recognize the need to assert their own definitions,
to reclaim their history, their culture; to create their own sense of community and
togetherness” (Carmichael and Hamilton 1967:37). The culturalists critique other
frameworks especially Marxism for failing to probe other spheres of American society
where racism plays an integral role, especially the psychological and cultural spheres
(Franklin 1991).

Internal colonialist perspective The internal colonialist perspective suggests that racism

is caused by the colonial status of racial minorities in the United States. The distinctive

16

features of this colonization include forced, involuntary entry to a new land, the
destroying of or at least constraining of the indigenous culture of the colonized groups,
the lives of the subordinate group are controlled and managed by the dominant power
who tend to manipulate and look down upon them (Carmichael and Hamilton 1967).
Proponents of this perspective argue that though the racial order and particular
forms of racial oppression have changed throughout history, one constant factor is that
whites receive unearned privilege and advantages at all levels in the society.
To generate privilege, certain people have to be exploited and to be exploited
they must be controlled—directly or indirectly. The mechanisms of control,
ranging from force and violence to legal restrictions to cultural beliefs, ideologies,
and modes of socio-economic integration, are therefore central to an
understanding of oppression. Social oppression is a dynamic process by which
one segment of society achieves power and privilege through the control and
exploitation of other groups, which are literally oppressed, that is burdened and
pushed down into the lower levels of the social order...White Americans enjoy
special privilege in all areas of existence where racial minorities are
systematically excluded or disadvantaged (Blauner 1972:22-23).
Blauner (1972) argues that although privilege permeates all institutions it is most
strategically expressed in the labor market where whites receive special advantages. The
strengths of this theoretical perspective are that it recognizes the differences experienced
between white ethnic immigrants and racial minorities; it realizes that racism is more
than psychological attitudes and beliefs held by individual people; and this tradition
recognizes that racism is systemic, comprehensive and rational in that whites act to
protect their interests (Bonilla—Silva 2001).
The previous sections summarize the dominant perspectives from the 19603 to the
early 1990s. We now will turn our attention to more recent theoretical perspectives. One

fascinating book on the history of research on race demonstrates how theory formation is

often influenced by events unfolding in history (Stanfield 1993). Thomas Petti grew, a

17

scholar of race relations theory, describes his shifting theoretical perspectives over the
course of four decades of scholarly work. Originally a preponent of the primacy of
individual attitudes in the perpetuation of racism (Pettigrew 1958, 1959), in his later
writings he concludes that norms are changed more from top-down structural alterations
than from bottom-up attitude changes—with face-to-face situations serving as a critical
link (Pettigrew 1993).

Significant scholarly work on racial theory has emerged in the last ten years that
departs fi'om much of the earlier theoretical work and can fall under the broad rubric of
critical race theory. Critical race theory begins with the notion that racism is ‘normal’ in
American society and because it is so enmeshed in the fabric of the US. social order, it
does not appear as unnatural to most people within this society (Delgado 1995). If it is
true that racism is a permanent fixture in American life (Bell 1992), then “the strategy for
those who fight for racial social justice is to unmask and expose racism in all its various
permutations” (Ladson-Billings 2000:264).

Racial formation perspective Several scholars whose work unmasks and exposes
permutations of racism will be mentioned here in greater depth: racial formation theory
by Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994) and racialized social systems theory by
Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2001; 2003). In the opening pages of the 1994 edition of Racial
Formation in the United States, Omi and Winant argue that a thorough review of the
scholarly trends analyzing racial theory reveals a reductionism in the acknowledgement
of the role of race in American society. Their perspective insists that race he understood
as a fundamental dimension of social organization and cultural meaning in the US. and

their alternative approach is based on the idea that concepts of race are always politically

18

contested. They describe race as a “matter of both social structure and cultural
representation. . .[Where] racial projects connect what race means. . ..[with] the ways in
which both social structures and everyday experiences are racially organized, based upon
that meaning” (Orrri and Winant 1994:56). Their key point here is that a racial project is
simultaneously an explanation of racial dynamics and an effort to reorganize/ redistribute
resources along particular racial lines. It is these racial projects that display the ways in
which structure and representation work together, that manifest the images and meanings
around race on the structural and experiential planes. Put another way, the racial
representation of a given people group does not function in isolation but is connected to
specific social structures that are operationalized in our institutions day by day.

One of the strengths of their argument is the acknowledgement of the ubiquitous
nature of racialization of US. society. They maintain that everyone learns the rules of
racial classification and of our own particular racial identity without obvious teaching or
conscious inculcation. All of us are “inserted in a comprehensively racialized social
structure. Race becomes ‘common sense’---a way of comprehending, explaining, and
acting in the world. A vast web of racial projects mediates between the discursive or
representational means in which race is identified and signified on the one hand, and the
institutional and organizational forms in which it is routinized and standardized on the
other” (Omi and Winant 1994:60).

Omi and Winant make careful distinctions between race and racism and argue that
the two concepts should not be used interchangeably. They argue that race does not have
a fixed meaning but is constructed and transformed sociohistorically through the link

between the structural and cultural dimensions of race in the US. (Omi and Winant

l9

1994:71) As such they seek to understand racial inequality in specific historical contexts
and do not assume that all racism is the same. “This is because of the crucial importance
we place in situating various ‘racisms’ within the dominant hegemonic discourse about
race” (Omi and Winant 1994:73, emphasis added).

Another significant contribution made by Omi and Winant in the recent academic
debates about the nature of racism is their rejection of an ‘either-or’ position regarding
whether racism is primarily an ideological phenomenon or a structural phenomenon.
“We believe it is crucial to disrupt the fixity of these positions by simultaneously arguing
that ideological beliefs have structural consequences and that social structures give rise to
beliefs. Racial ideology and social structure, therefore, mutually shape the nature of
racism in a complex, dialectical and overdetermined manner” (Omi and Winant 1994:75).

The strengths of Omi and Winant’s racial formation theory are many: first they
understand that race is created and “lived” in American society by social, economic and
political forces and that race is an organizing principle for social relationships and
interactions in society. This is a departure from earlier theories about race. Their
recognition that racism is shaped and reinforced by the continual interaction between
ideological beliefs among individuals and the racialized structures that have been created
has been an important contribution to the literature.

Racialized social systems perspective Another theoretical framework for understanding
these phenomenon that builds on the contributions of Omi and Winant is the racialized
social systems perspective which suggests that societies “allocate differential economic,
political, social and even psychological rewards to groups along racial lines; lines that are

socially constructed (Bonilla-Silva 1996: 474). Using this framework racism is not

20

merely individual prejudice but the collective misuse of power that results in diminished
life opportunities for some racial groups.

In all racialized social systems the placement of people in racial categories

involves some form of hierarchy that produces definite social relations between

the races. The race placed in the superior position tends to receive greater
economic remuneration and access to better occupations and/or prospects in the
labor market, occupies a primary position in the political system, is granted higher
social estimation, and often has the license to draw physical (segregation) as well

as social boundaries between itself and other races (Bonilla-Silva 1996:469).

Because of this reality, Bonilla-Silva maintains that racism should be studied from
the viewpoint of racialization—that is, how particular societies are racially organized
with racial hierarchies. This leads analysts to recognize that racism is not static based
merely on some distant past but is constantly changing and such change is viewed as a
normal component of the racialized system. Cultural, political, economic, social and even
psychological racial phenomenon, including overt and covert racial behavior, can be
traced to the racial organization of that society. Bonilla-Silva argues that rather than
conceiving of racism as a universal or uniformly orchestrated phenomenon, analysts
should study ‘historically-specific racisms’ (Bonilla-Silva 2001: 45-46).

One of the strengths of this fi‘amework is that it recognizes that racism can be
explained not by merely examining the wrongs perpetrated in the past but by examining
how racial phenomenon are structured in contemporary settings. Because the argument
focuses on the structural rather than the ideological nature of the problem, analysts who
affirm this perspective recognize the solution to the problem is not education of
individuals (as the mainstream would suggest) but rather the elimination or dismantling

of the systemic roots of racism. Bonilla-Silva (2003) argues that analysts are challenged

to test the usefulness of this theoretical framework by doing comparative research on

21

racialization in various societies/institutions and by examining specific mechanisms,
practices and social relations that produce and reproduce racial inequality at all levels -to
uncover and expose a society’s racial structure. The crux of this argument is that

The persistent inequality experienced by blacks and other racial minorities in the

United States today is due to the continued albeit changed existence of a racial

structure. In contrast to race relations in the Jim Crow period, racial practices that

reproduce racial inequality in contemporary America are (1) increasingly covert

(2) embedded in normal operations of institutions (3) void of direct racial

terminology, and (4)invisible to most whites (Bonilla-Silva 1996: 476).

In the growing literature on racism and racialization most of the contemporary
theoretical frameworks acknowledge there is an interplay between different levels of
racism. If, in fact, racism is a root cause of observed race-associated differences in
socioeconomic status, health outcomes, educational levels, etc., scholars argue that it is
important to develop an understanding of the characteristics and manifestations of racism
(Jones 2001). J ones has developed a framework for understanding racism on three levels:
institutionalized, personally mediated, and internalized. In this framework,
institutionalized racism is defined as differential access to the goods, services, and
opportunities of society by race. Institutionalized racism is normative, sometimes
legalized, and often manifests an inherited disadvantage. It is structural, having been
codified in our institutions of custom, practice, and law so there need not be an
identifiable perpetrator. . .institutionalized racism manifests itself both in material
conditions and in access to power. Personally mediated racism is defined as prejudice
and discrimination (either intentional or unintentional) where prejudice means differential

assumptions about the abilities, motives, and intentions of others according to their race,

and discrimination means differential actions toward others according to their race.

22

Intemalized racism is defined as acceptance by members of the stigmatized races of
negative messages about their own abilities and intrinsic worth. This is manifested in
their not believing in themselves or in others who look like them. (Jones 2000:1212-
1213). More recent literature is emerging which argues that internalized racism can
appear as either internalized oppression! inferiority or as internalized superiority (Dias,
Drew and Gardiner 2003). This literature suggests that in contemporary American
society racial identity is Shaped by complex dynamics that support and perpetuate the
dominant racist paradigm in which people of color experience and live out racial
oppression and whites experience and live out racial superiority. This internalization has

significant consequences for how race is lived in America.

Race and Religion

Race scholars tend to avoid the role of religion in their study of race in American
culture. But there is a need to understand the role of the religious community in
addressing the racial divide. The mainstream notions of addressing race and racism
through primarily individualistic efforts have been as influential within the religious
community as within other American institutions. This focus on changing individual
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors is reflected in the literature on race and religion (V ora and
Vora 2002; Clawson and Clark 2003).

Since the 1970s there have been concerted efforts on the part of the religious
community to bring about racial reconciliation (Salley and Behm 1970; Perkins 1976)
and during the 1990s the evangelical Christian community in particular, began focusing

on racial reconciliation as a central thrust of their vision (Perkins and Rice 1993;

23

Washington and Kehrein 1993). Racial reconciliation is built on the foundation of
committed personal relationships that are characterized by intentionality, sacrifice,
vulnerability and interdependence. “The reconciliation model requires a decisive
paradigm shift—one evidenced by friendships of trust, common mission, and mutual
submission that go beyond Sunday morning” (Perkins 1995:110). The focus is on
transforming individual racism and this model only mentions in passing institutional
racism.

Politics strives to transform people by altering the structure of society; religion

strives to change society by transforming individuals. In this respect, the racial

reconciliation movement of the 19903 differs importantly from the racial equality
movements of the past. In those earlier movements, the main goal of religious
activists, including Evangelical William Wilberforce, who led England's
antislavery movement; the Quakers of American Abolitionism; or Dr. Martin

Luther King, was to spur politicians to action. But in postmodern societies where

the greatest challenges we face are increasingly less purely political in nature than

behavioral and attitudinal, or even moral and spiritual, social change can be
expected to come increasingly from grassroots community and religious activists
like the Evangelical reconcilers, who strive to change the nature of society one

community, and one soul, at a time (Glynn 1998:841).

Another strand in the literature on race and religion acknowledges there are
different manifestations of racism and distinguish between individual, institutional and
cultural racism. “White society is imprisoned in a system of racism that ghettoizes us
[white people] as well as people of color. Individual persons are incorporated into a
powerful system of white racism in four ways: through isolation, anesthetization, white
privilege, and conditioning education. In our own comfortable prison, both blatant and

subtle myths and lies about people of color and about ourselves are perpetuated and

believed (Bamdt 1991:64).

24

Religion and Racialization Theory

In recent years a few race scholars have begun to write fi'om within the racialized
social systems framework seeking to understand the relationship between religion and the
racialization of American society (Emerson and Smith 2000). They are calling for more
study of how the religious community contributes to, rather than confronts, the racial
organization of our society. They recognize the need to go beyond either a vague notion
of institutional racism or a focus merely on individual racial reconciliation initiatives
(Emerson 1998). Sociologists who study American religion, Michael Emerson and
Christian Smith in their groundbreaking book, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion
and the Problem of Race in America, argue that many people mistakenly believe that
racism is on the wane because of the gains brought about by the Civil Rights movement.
Consistent with Bonilla-Silva (1996), they argue that racism has become more covert in
the years since the Civil Rights movement but no less operative. As such, we must adapt
our understanding and analysis of race to the new, post Civil Rights era.

Emerson and Smith (2000) further argue that our institutions and some of
America’s non-race-based values reproduce racialization without any need for people to
be prejudiced. For example, according to Emerson and Smith’s research, highly educated
whites, compared to less well-educated whites, are much less likely to say they are
uncomfortable with black neighbors, less likely to say that they would move if African
Americans moved to their neighborhood, and more likely to say that they would consider
moving to neighborhoods where African Americans live. But when they looked at where
whites actually lived by educational level, college-educated whites are actually more

segregated from black Americans than are whites with less education. They concluded

25

it’s not that well-educated whites are more prejudiced in the traditional sense. Rather, it
is because they are better able to follow core American ideals---a nice home in a quiet
neighborhood with parks and good schools. Material comfort is an established core
American ideal, whereas racial and cultural diversity is not.

To reproduce racialization in the United States does not require overt racism or
prejudice as they have been typically defined. It can happen just by following the
‘American dream’ in everyday actions and decisions, such as where we choose to live.
This framework understands that people need not intend their actions to contribute to
racial division and inequality for their actions to do so (Emerson and Smith 2000: 9).
“Choice and freedom are two of the dominant American values that today maintain the
racialized society. Contemporaries may view these values as the realization of
American’s destiny, but these values are at the same time now essential tools in dividing
people along socially constructed racial lines” (Emerson and Smith 2000:11). In the
Emerson and Smith analysis, black-white relations are center stage, not because there are
not issues among other races and ethnicities, but because the gulf between American
blacks and American whites is generally more vast and the history longer in comparison
to others.

In their particular study of the role of religion and race, Emerson and Smith
(2000: 76) studied American evangelicals and have argued that they often do not
recognize a racialized society because they use particular cultural tools to interpret and
make sense of their world—these cultural tools include individualism, ‘relationalism’
(attaching central importance to interpersonal relationships), and antistructuralism (an

inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept social structural influences). Emerson

26

and Smith postulate that because white Americans in particular are often able to and do
live their everyday lives in isolation fiom people of color, many white Americans claim
that the ‘race problem’ either does not still exist or is overblown or exaggerated by vested
interests. Whites’ interpretation of the race problem is such that it is still viewed
primarily as a problem among individuals and poor relationships. Their central argument
is that white evangelicals (influenced by the dominant American societal trends) tend to
construct reality so as to individualize and minimize the problem of race.

But the experience of people of color in their study was quite different. Black and
white conservative Protestants were studied and asked how they explain racial inequality
and their results were striking (Emerson and Smith 2000:94-98). White conservative
Protestants blame blacks more for racial problems—or hold them more accountable—
than other whites do and white conservative Protestants are Significantly less likely to
explain racial inequality in structural terms. (In fact, white conservative Protestants are
more individualistic and less structural in their explanations of black-white inequality
than other whites.) However, the opposite is true with black conservative Protestants.
Black conservative Protestants, compared to other blacks, are less individualistic and
more structural in their explanations of racial inequality. It appears that conservative
religion intensifies the different values and experiences of each racial group, Sharpening
and increasing the divide between black and white Americans.

Highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the Emerson/Smith analysis,
Douglas Sharp argues, “[T]he emphases on individualism and relationalism collude to
deflect attention from the humanly constructed sociocultural context that makes human

decision-making and actions possible and plausible” (Sharp 2004:244). Quoting

27

Emerson and Smith (2000:117) in their critique of the evangelical individualistic mindset,
‘[S]ociety is viewed as merely the aggregation of individuals, social change is achieved
by personal change and renewal—most importantly by people becoming Christians,’
Sharp continues, “To their credit, the authors discount this strategy as an effective means
of social change. Indeed they argue that as a strategy, it is not only a failure but also a
means to perpetuating racism. It is not just that personal transformation leaves racist
sociocultural structures intact. Rather it is that personal transformation is thought to be
disconnected fi'om these structures, just like the individual as such is independent of

social structures and institutions” (Sharp 2004:245).

The Need for Current Study

The relatively new scholarship on the role of religion and racialization calls for
more investigation, particularly how the religious community contributes to, rather than
confi'onts, the racial organization of our society. Few scholars have explored the racial
structure of religious institutions and therefore have missed important aspects of how
racial inequality is produced and reproduced in American society in subtle, yet complex
ways. More research is needed to unmask how the dominant perspective ignores and
even misrepresents the experience of nonwhite people in American society. For
researchers interested in understanding the persistence of racial inequality new research
strategies are needed to uncover how white superiority has been maintained despite the
gains of the Civil Rights era.

Specifically this research furthers the discussion of the ways racialization is
embodied in religious institutions particularly the local congregation. Drawing upon the

theoretical framework of racialized social systems the research examines how race and

28

racism operate in a historically-specific context (as called for by Bonilla-Silva and
others). The strength of the racialized social systems perspective is that it recognizes the
need for a structural analysis without minimizing the impact of individual actors in
combating racism.

This research explores how race power and privilege firnctions within the
congregation and how structures within congregations build, support, and reinforce
institutional racism. It explores specific methods, practices and social relations that
produce and reproduce racial inequality within congregations. Relying on in-depth
interviews and participant observation, this research seeks to uncover instances of
institutional racism by exposing and bringing to light both what is overt and what is
hidden. This study turns an analytical gaze on the present-day existence and
manifestations of racism (as distinguishable within the institution) not merely as variables
to measure but also as lived experiences within the research process (as called for by
Chavez et. al. 2002:93). Similarities and differences in the perspectives of whites and
people of color are examined carefully, particularly seeking to understand the experience
of nonwhites in the congregational setting.

Acknowledging the breadth and depth of institutional racism has been challenging
for the participants in this study because much of our understanding of how race/
racialization ftmctions within American society is unconscious. A particular focus of this
study is to uncover hidden aspects of internalized racism and how internalized racism
supports and reinforces institutionalized racism. Through in-depth individual and group

interviews, we explore this connection between institutional racism and internalized

29

 

racism by examining the language respondents use and the rhetorical positions they
assume when describing their experience of race in their congregations.

This research fills a gap in our understanding of how racism operates in American
society by examining one institution which is known on the one hand, for its ethical
commitment to confronting the race problem but has also been shown to perpetuate the
problem albeit unknowingly. The research findings could increase our understanding of
how faith-based institutions that usually perpetuate racialization can become a force to

make structural or systemic change to undo it.

30

Chapter 3: Setting and Context of the Research

“There are not very many places in the country where you 'Ilfind more activity in trying to grapple with the
issues of race and racism than in Grand Rapids and West Michigan " (GR Press March 2, 2003).
Joe R. Feagin, University of Florida professor and scholar of racism

Grand Rapids, Michigan: A unique setting for the study of race

Scholars have recognized and written extensively about the unique character and
nuances of the racialized American society but the general public has been slow to
understand how racialization has shaped and impacted their collective lives and the larger
American society. In recent years a number of initiatives have been spawned to expose
and uncover the pernicious effects of a racialized society in various sectors and segments
of the US. In this context West Michigan has developed a national reputation for its
efforts to confront and address racism in the business sector, in the education system, in
health care provision, and in the religious community (F eagin 2003).

Grand Rapids and its metropolitan area are unique in the breadth and depth of
work being done to tackle racism and it provides a rich setting for study. A brief outline
of three of these initiatives follows since they form one context from which this research
has emerged. In the early 19905 the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce staff and
business leaders began to meet informally to discuss issues of cultural diversity and its
economic impact. By 1993 the Cultural Diversity Council was formally established
whose purpose was to promote an inclusive employee community. To help eliminate
racism in the West Michigan community a coalition of businesses came together in 1997
to form the Employers Coalition for Healing Racism. Through pioneering programs and
services, this coalition helps businesses incorporate, embrace, and benefit from racial

diversity in the workplace. The Employers Coalition for Healing Racism also established

31

 

 

 

the Institutes for Healing Racism, an award winning ten-week dialogue program focusing
on combating and healing the wounds of racism. The Institutes for Healing Racism help
participants explore the complexities of racism by examining US. history, personal
attitudes about race, self awareness, privilege, and institutional power. This work
spawned by the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce has made an impact on the
business community in West Michigan yet many acknowledge that there is still much
work to be done.

The Woodrick Institute for the Study of Racism and Diversity housed at Aquinas
College works to help individuals and organizations increase their capacity to address
racial diversity. It is well known for its 2-day Institutes for Healing Racism, targeting
both executives and individuals from all parts of the community. In addition, the
Woodrick Institute serves as a clearinghouse for diversity-related information, tips and
resources and provides numerous activities and workshops to engage in healing racism
and celebrating diversity.

The Racial Justice Institute (RJI) under the auspices of the Grand Rapids Center
for Ecumenism (GRACE) provides a focus for mobilizing persons within the religious
community to respond to issues of racial justice. A number of churches within the
religious community in Grand Rapids are working to foster racial reconciliation to bridge
the barriers caused by racial differences. In the fall of 1998, the Racial Justice Institute
embarked on a mission that brought 150 area business, civic, educational and religious
leaders together for a half-day leadership conference which focused on how racism can
undermine the social, cultural and economic base of a community. Its purpose was to

begin a dialogue that would pave the way for a proactive five-year effort to promote

32

cultural diversity and racial healing in the Grand Rapids area. The event’s two-part
agenda was to create a vision for the future of racial justice in this community, and to
develop strategies that would provide a platform and action plan for achieving that vision.
As the process unfolded, two themes were established: (1) 3 Summit on Racism must be
an ongoing, action-oriented event; and (2) anti-racist work must be community owned
and driven. ‘If Grand Rapids were a racism-free community, what would it look like?’
was the question at hand. In response to this question, six areas where racism was most
blatant were identified: Business, Community, Education, Government, Media and
Religion. Today each area has created Action Teams, which are working to implement
strategies to confront racism in these areas. When it began in 1999, the Stunrnit on
Racism attracted over 400 people from all sectors of the community and Since then, the
number of supporters and attendees has increased each year. The Summit continues to
attract a diverse group of people who come together annually to learn and Share ideas, but
most importantly to create a plan of action to combat racism in Grand Rapids.

Although most of these diversity initiatives acknowledge the need to address
systemic racism, their primary focus iS on confronting individual racism through
changing the attitudes and beliefs of individuals. Less has been done to organize and
confront the structural and institutional practices that have perpetuated racism.

One particular faith-based organization, a denomination whose headquarters is
located in West Michigan, has been intentionally working to analyze the systemic and
structural aspects of racism within its institution and it has been selected as the setting for
this research. The Christian Reformed Church has a large and visible presence in west

Michigan and its religious commitment to welcome and embrace people from all

33

backgrounds provides a rich opportunity to study the dynamics and impact of a racialized

society in a religious setting.

The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA)

The Christian Reformed Church (CRC), begun in the United States in 1857 by
Dutch immigrants, places its historical roots in the Reformed tradition of American
Christianity. The Reformed tradition is known for its strong view of the Bible, the
importance of history and tradition in defining the life of the community, and the
significant role of human experience in Shaping the lens through which people view the
world and their place in it (Plantinga 2002). The significant differences in life
experiences and opportunities between the dominant white population and the people of
color within the Christian Reformed Church are typical of the American experience and
provide an appropriate setting for study.

In a new book on black theology, an African-American Reformed theologian
argues that white Reformed Christians have a truncated understanding of human
experience because they have failed to recognize the contributions made by African-
Americans.

An African American perspective on theology comes more as a reaction than as

a theological initiative. It has been made necessary by conservative Christians’

failure to grapple with issues of Afiican-American history and consciousness.

This is particularly evident in the areas of racism and discrimination. The sad yet

irrefutable fact is that the theology of Western Christianity, dominated by white

males, has had scant if any direct answers to the evils of racism and the
detrimental effects of institutional discrimination. The major contributors to
conservative theological thought over the centuries have, consciously or not,
spoken predominantly to and for white people. In fact, the unfortunate

reality is that the ideologies of racism and elitism that have marred the landscape

of Western civilization have had a uniquely conservative Christian flavor. Those

who advocated a caste system of slavery and racial superiority in places such as
the United States, England, South Africa, and India have often done so with the

34

consent of a church defined by conservative theologians. And even though many
white theologians have refuted these erroneous positions, very few have sought to
positively set forth God and his providential hand in the life and struggle of
African Americans (Carter 2003:6-7).

In the denomination’s own internal history, the people who formed the CRC
created a monocultural church which solidified a primarily Dutch ethnic identity,
established institutions that nourished those who share that identity, and sustained those
benefits over time for those within that shared inheritance. In the context of the Christian
Reformed Church in North America, it is important to remember the differences between
immigrant and conquered peoples. Most people of Dutch or German descent in the CRC
feared absorption or cooptation by the dominant American society and sought to maintain
a distinct ethnic identity (Bratt 2001). This is quite different from most African
Americans and other people of color who have faced the opposite problem in the United
States: exclusion from participation, full status and opportunity. This has been
documented in the scholarly literature about racial oppression (Blauner 1972; Feagin and

Feagin 1978; Feagin and Sikes 1994).

Many ethnic groups in America have lived in ghettos. What makes the black
ghettos an expression of colonized status are three special features. First, the
ethnic ghettos arose more through voluntary choice: the choice to immigrate to
America and the choice to live among fellow ethnics. Second, the immigrant
ghettos of the inner city were one- or two- generation phenomena—way stations
along the road of acculturation and assimilation. When ethnic communities
persist, they tend to reflect voluntary decisions to live among one’s fellows and
maintain group institutions. . .the black ghettos on the other hand have been more
permanent, though their boundaries expand and change and some individuals do
escape them. But most relevant is the third point, that black communities are, to a
great extent, controlled from the outside. For many Europeans. . .there was only a
brief period, often less than a generation, during which their residential buildings,
commercial stores, and other enterprises were owned by outsiders. Afro-
Americans are distinct in the extent to which segregated communities have
remained under outside control: economic, political, and administrative (Blauner

35

1972:86)
While it is true that white Europeans who came to the US. in the last 125 years
(since the Civil War) did not personally build or sustain slavery, they nevertheless
benefited from the racist structures, practices, and attitudes that permeated American
society since its inception.
The ancestors of most people in the CRC were direct beneficiaries of race-based
policies and practices and thereby inherit the legacy created by slavery along with
its social effects. In placing themselves within the flow of North American
history, CRC people of European descent ought to recognize an analogy with
their theological understanding of original sin. They have inherited a situation
and propensity not of their own making; they have, knowingly or unlmowingly,
accommodated themselves to, actively participated in, and sought to reap
advantage from this inheritance; they have thus owned and perpetuated it and so
share responsibility for it (Bratt 2001 :2).
Thus white members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, many of
whom arrived in the US. much later than did those of African descent have enjoyed
unearned advantages socially, politically and economically. As the CRC began to
broaden its outreach to other cultural groups, important issues developed over who is

included and who isn’t, whose preferences count and whose do not, and who leads and

who follows.

The History of Race Relations in the Christian Reformed Church

From the time of its birth in western Michigan in the 18503 and for the first
hundred years of its existence the membership of the Christian Reformed Church in
North America remained almost exclusively ethnic Dutch. As early as the 1920s the
denomination began ‘missionary’ efforts to Native Americans in Arizona and New

Mexico and to urban neighborhoods in Chicago and Grand Rapids. However these

36

efforts kept the non-Dutch, particularly people of color, at arms length and did not grant
them equal status within the denomination. During the 19503 there was increasing debate
over the separate, lesser status of the neighborhood chapels and by 1959 the Synod
adopted the Reformed Ecumenical Synod’s twelve-point Declarations on Race, which
initially seemed to have little bearing on the life of the denomination (CRCNA 1996: 4).
By the mid-19603 as the US. faced racial strife in cities across the country, the CRC was
forced to deal with race relations directly.

In 1971 the Synodical Committee on Race Relations (SCORR) was formed which
provided full-time staff and was mandated to work toward the eradication of racism in the
church and in society. “Since the late fifties, CRC synods (1959, 1968, 1969, 1977) have
been regularly decrying racism in all its forms—both as personal prejudice and as abuse
of systems in our society” (V anderMeulen 2000:1). In this work to confront racism the
CRC has sought to diversify its membership and to form multiethnic congregations
among Hispanic, Korean, Chinese and Southeast Asian immigrant groups.

Although the denomination has worked consistently on addressing racial
inequality for decades, the process and progress has been slow—ethnic-minority persons
working within the agencies of the denomination, although growing in number, still serve
primarily in support roles; a disproportionate number of ethnic-minority pastors receive
their training in nontraditional ways; ethnic-minority pastors are compensated at lower
levels than are Anglo pastors; at all levels of denominational life persons of color struggle
with a sense of belonging (CRCNA 199616-7). The 1996 Synod report on race suggested

a wide range of responses including—“To witness publicly against racism, prejudice, and

37

related unemployment, poverty, and injustices and in defense of all people as image
bearers of God” (CRCNA 1996:32, emphasis original).

The denominational staff and the denominational Board of Trustees were
mandated to move forward in the work of eradicating racism affirming the direction of
recent decades where the CRC has publicly decried racism in all its forms
(V anderMeulen 2000). But by its own admission the denomination has not lmown how
to truly cross the racial divide. By 1997 it “became clear that many of our agencies and
institutions were stuck. We didn’t know what to do next” (V anderMeulen 2000). It was
in this context that a number of denominational representatives were invited to explore a
new approach——anti-racism or the dismantling of racism on an institutional level. “This
approach, pioneered by the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond, had been put
powerfully into the context of Christianity by an organization called Crossroads. It was
an exciting new approach that took history seriously and didn’t gloss over power
relationships. It offered a methodology that combined training, organizing, and

teamwork in a powerful way” (V anderMeulen 2000:2).

The Anti-racism Initiative within the Christian Reform ed Church

Since 1997, the denomination has been involved in intensive work to dismantle
racism on the institutional level and has made a long-term commitment to this process.
This has involved work at all levels within the denomination, its agencies and
organizations, to consider carefully their racial history and to examine how power has
been used and misused. It has involved education and community organizing to analyze

systemic racism. To facilitate its growth in the understanding of anti-racism, the CRC

38

contracted with Crossroads Ministry, an independent nonprofit based in Chicago, to
develop an intensive anti-racism training initiative for the whole denomination.

Crossroads was founded in the late 19803 as an effort to develop new directions in
understanding and combating the root causes of institutional racism in the United States.
The work of Crossroads is to train teams within institutions, primarily religious
institutions, helping them to analyze racism and to develop and implement strategies to
dismantle racism within their structures. Crossroads training begins by helping teams
develop the ability to analyze institutional racism, particularly in specific contexts, and
then to evaluate, assess, and develop strategies for change.

A Significant part of the Crossroads anti-racism training is its argument that
racism is more than personal prejudice and bigotry but rather racism is the systemic and
institutionalized misuse of power. This theoretical framework situates Crossroads within
the institutionalist perspective as described in the literature review in Chapter 2. The
Crossroads anti-racism training examines how this misuse of power manifests itself and
operates within institutional racism, in three essential ways.

First it demeans and controls the people at whom it is aimed. Second, it provides

power and privilege to the dominant racial group. By emphasizing the first form

of racist power—the power to Oppress—we often overlook this second and deeper
feature of systemic racism: it is designed to serve the economic, cultural, and
psychological interests of the dominant group. The third and perhaps most
insidious power of systemic and institutionalized racism is its power it imprison
us at a deep psychological level and spiritual level. It plants notions of superiority
and prerogative in the hearts and minds of white people, and it leads people of

color to engage in self-destructive attitudes and behaviors (Carpenter 2000: 21).

The denominational anti-racism work first began with the agencies and

organizations of the denomination as a whole and then a congregational anti-racism

initiative was undertaken in 2002 as a pilot program within the denomination to bring the

39

training to grassroots members. Each of the three congregational anti-racism teams have
made significant investments of time and money in twelve days of training to begin
analyzing institutional racism in their particular settings. The anti-racism training has
helped participants examine US. history to identify both legal / intentional forms of
institutional racism and non-legal/ hidden forms of institutional racism. Additionally
considerable time has been spent considering how institutional racism can be perpetuated
in subtle, unconscious ways and encourages participants to consider with a degree of
painful honesty who ‘we have been turned into.’ The anti-racism training focuses on
teaching as a tool for organizing rather than as merely a means of disbursing information.
Over and over again the phrase is used during training—you can not m racism away.
Change needs to happen at the level of our unconscious assumptions as well as with our
conscious, determined actions. The purpose here in describing the anti-racism training is
not so much to evaluate its foundational assumptions and categories for analysis as it is to
give a brief overview of what the participants in the anti-racism initiative were exposed to
and encouraged to consider. After training was completed in 2003 the congregational
teams have continued their intensive work to analyze how racism is perpetuated in their
particular congregations and to strategize about the steps they need to take to begin to
dismantle racism in their own settings. This anti-racism work is strikingly different from
other diversity initiatives occurring in west Michigan because it does not primarily focus
on educating people about racism or sensitizing them to racial dynamics, though this can
be an additional benefit. Rather its focus is on helping people develop the ability to
analyze how structures and institutions can perpetuate a racialized society and this ability

to do structural analysis is a significant first step in confronting it.

40

The Research Setting: The Congregational Anti-racism Initiative within the CRC

This research studies the three congregations selected by the denomination to
participate in the congregational anti-racism initiative. It explores the lived-experiences
of race for people of color and for whites in these congregations, particularly giving voice
to those whose voice has been silent in the past. This exploratory study has sought to
understand the practices of congregations in analyzing the systemic nature of racism/
racialization and in organizing to dismantle racism at an institutional/ congregational
level. A case study approach has been used since it is a “preferred strategy when ‘how’
or ‘why’ questions are being posed. . .and when the focus is on a contemporary
phenomenon within some real-life context” (Yin 1984:1). The choice of approach has
been purposeful as a means to develop a deep, rather than broad, description and
interpretation of how a religious institution contributes to or confronts the racialization of
American society.

The three congregations provide rich settings for study both because of their
similarities (in terms of religious perspective) and because of their very significant
demographic diversity and variation. One congregation is predominantly white, wealthy
and situated in a suburban area of Grand Rapids; another congregation is predominantly
African—American, poor and situated in a transitional urban neighborhood of Grand
Rapids; the third congregation is racially mixed, economically diverse and situated in a
well-established but marginalized urban neighborhood.

This study hopes to provide insight to both the study of institutional racism and

the call to action to dismantle it in congregations, organizations, and society at large. It is

41

therefore conducted fiom the approach of a scholar-practitioner. In terms of scholarship,
it is embedded within and contributes to a body of literature that recognizes that racism is
not static, based merely on some distant past, but is constantly changing and such change
is viewed as a normal component of the racialized system. In addition, as a case study it
represents a microcosm of how institutional racism may function in society at large. The
rationale for choosing a set of congregations as cases is that if pe0ple gain consciousness
about institutional racism in a common space that they voluntarily inhabit, within
institutions that they can actually affect, then they can Slowly start to dismantle it. It is
therefore a stepping stone to greater consciousness about institutional racism outside the
church.

The study also has very immediate and practical goals in terms of the call to
action to dismantle racism in these congregations. For the scholar-practitioner, these
congregations provide an ideal research setting as the participants have articulated a
desire to deepen their own understanding of how race affects the functioning of their
institution. Because of this participants in the study were accessible and generous with
their time. Most were open and willing, at times eager, to talk at length about their
experiences. Their interest in the study led them to ask questions, to probe deeper and to
hold the researcher accountable as the research unfolded which contributed to the
collaborative nature of the research process. They share a common dedication and can
take mutual responsibility for the work. Of all places, a church community should be a
space with fewer racial problems that elsewhere and be the most open to understanding

the challenges.

42

Chapter 4- Methods

There will be no single conventional paradigm to which all social scientists ascribe. We occupy a
historical moment marked by multivocality, contested meanings, paradigmatic controversies, and new
textual forms. This is an age of emancipation; we have been freed from the confines of a single regime of
truth and from the habit of seeing the world in one color.

from Handbook of Qualitative Research (2000: 162)

Research Paradigm Underlying the Chosen Methodology

Substantial change has occurred in the landscape of social science inquiry within
the last twenty years, particularly the last ten years.

Indeed, it would be difficult to miss the distinct turn of the social sciences toward

more interpretative, postmodem, and criticalist practices and theorizing. This

nonpositivist orientation has created a context (surround) in which virtually no
study can go unchallenged by proponents of contending paradigms. Further, it is
obvious that the number of practitioners of new-paradi gm inquiry is growing
daily. There can be no question that the legitimacy of postmodern paradigms is
well established and at least equal to the legitimacy of received and conventional

paradigms (Lincoln and Guba 2000: 164).

This emergence of so-called ‘new-paradi gm inquiry’ has resulted in considerable
intellectual and theoretical dialogue about differences, Similarities, and contradictions
among paradigms and a resultant blurring of boundaries between them (Richardson
1994). Lincoln and Guba (2000), for example, identify themselves as scholars who
operate within the critical theory perspective but have been strongly influenced by those
in the constructivist and participatory paradigms.

Paradigms are basic belief systems or worldviews that guide investigators in
fundamental ways. All paradigms answer basic questions about the nature of reality
(ontology), the nature and theory of knowledge (epistemology), how knowledge can be
apprehended or accumulated (methodology) and what value this has within society (Guba

and Lincoln 1994; Lincoln and Guba 2000; Bawden, 1997). Inquiry paradigms define

43

the boundaries of what falls within and outside the limits of investigation and questions
of methodology (both quantitative and qualitative) are secondary to questions of
paradigm.

Over the last half century these Significant paradigm shifts have set the stage for
the development of new research methodologies. Emerging within the past 30 years but
gaining support and a deeper, more nuanced understanding in the last decade are
collaborative and participatory research paradigms. Heron and Reason (1997) argue for a
radical empiricism by asserting that a participatory worldview is fundamentally
experiential—through direct encounter, face-to-face meeting. Their argument forms the
foundation for cooperative inquiry where people collaborate to define both the questions
they wish to explore and the methodology for the exploration. Within this view, the
investigator and the investigated are interactively linked in ways that influence and shape
the inquiry. The role of the researcher has been re-defined from one of detached observer
to empathic collaborator. Close, interpersonal exchange enables researchers to gain
meaningful insights into how people understand and make sense of their own behavior.
Decisions about how to define the problem to be investigated, what methodologies to use
and how analysis is conducted become a joint responsibility between researchers and
participants. On-going reflection by co-researchers is critical to the development of
knowledge. Research must lead not only to the generation of new knowledge but also to
action for social change. Such research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns
of people in an immediate problematic Situation and to the goals of social science by joint

collaboration (Brown and Tandon 1983).

44

The participatory research tradition emerged from work with oppressed people in
the Third World and focused on linking investigation, education and action. Participatory
research frequently emerges in situations where people want to make changes
thoughtfully and with critical reflection. It emerges when people want to think about
where they are now, how things came to be that way, and &0m these starting points, how
in practice they might be changed (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000). Moving beyond
merely recording observable facts, participatory research has had the explicit intention of
collectively investigating reality in order to transform it (Hall, 1981, 1992; Brown and
Tandon, 1983; Fals-Borda, 1991). Thus, participatory research combines three
activities—investigation, education, and action. It is a method of social investigation of
problems, involving participation of oppressed and ordinary people in problem posing
and problem solving (Hall, 1981). The direct link between research and action is the
most unique aspect of participatory research. Participatory research aims at three types of
changes: 1) development of a critical consciousness of both researcher and participants;
2) improvement of the lives of those involved in the research process; 3) transformation
of fundamental societal structures and relationships (Maguire, 1987). “Alternative
paradigm researchers stress collaborative or participative inquiry in which control over
both the research process and product is more equally shared between researcher and
participants. They maintain that research Should be useful in improving the life
conditions of oppressed people. Both the process and outcomes should put power and
control in the hands of the oppressed. Research should give them a voice in articulating
their perception of the problems and relevant solutions. In this way, research can become

a tool for self-determined social transformation rather than for the maintenance of

45

inequitable social relations” (Maguire, 1987: 24). Participatory research can be seen as a
significant shift from social science research that viewed people as the subjects of
research (or research on the people) and it is also a shift from doing research with the
people as in action research. The shift signified in participatory research is a Shift to
research being done by the people, as co-researchers. Participatory research focuses on
methods and techniques of inquiry that take into account people’s history, culture,
interactional practices, and emotional lives (Stringer, 1999). Action researchers tend to
not advocate for the groups or people with whom they work, while participatory
researchers generally ally themselves with oppressed groups and do become advocates.
As such, action researchers work with the system and participatory researchers often
work against the system (Brown and Tandon, 1983: 288).

One of the weaknesses in the literature on participatory research is that the
common use of the term ‘participation’ conceals divergent views about its aims and
practice. Participation is loosely defined and is often assumed to be synonymous with
‘good’ and ‘empowering’ (Guijt and Shah, 1998). Rather, clarifying questions should be
raised: Who is treated as a participant and who is excluded? On what grounds? In what
ways do they participate? How is their participation taken into account and or not taken
into account? How much do they participate? There have been times when only the
most vocal community participants remained invested and involved in the work. This
raises challenges about how to deal with the complexity of community differences,
including age, ethnicity, gender, class, etc. It’s not adequate to espouse the value of
participatory research or participation, in general, without carefully delineating what it

meant by the terms in the particular context in which it is being espoused.

46

One important task for a researcher is discerning what methodology iS most
appropriate in particular settings with the particular problems that are posed. This is not
decided upon in isolation but must be done through negotiation and dialogue.
Nevertheless, certain methods will lead to better outcomes than others depending on the
setting. In every situation there is a tension between the ideal and what is possible given
certain constraints. Participatory researchers face numerous challenges such as how to
keep the participants involved and in the driver’s seat, how to get information out to
people in ways that are useable and how to pay attention to research priorities and power
relationships/dynamics.

This research falls under the broad rubric of new-paradigm inquiry (Lincoln and
Guba 2000). Though this research was collaborative, it was not truly participatory
research because the research process was controlled by the primary researcher. The
data collected was “not the telling of a life so much as it [was] an incomplete story angled
toward my questions and each [person’s] ever-changing sense of self and of how the
world wor ” (Frankenberg 1993:49).

Initially the researcher approached the three congregational anti-racism teams to
ask permission to study their process and to try to understand their attempts to dismantle
racism within their congregations. Seeking their permission and their ‘buy-in’ required
the researcher to carefully explain the purposes of the research and to outline how it
could serve their interests. The proposed research was to be a doctoral dissertation but
not merely that—much discussion ensued about how the anti-racism participants could

use the research as a tool to better understand themselves, the unique contexts in which

47

these congregations are situated and how they could utilize this research to promote
social change within their congregations.

The participants themselves recognized the value in this research being conducted
but did not stake a claim in guiding it from beginning to end as would be true in
participatory research. Many of the participants articulated the importance this research
potentially has in their efforts to dismantle racism but they were not the instigators, nor
the drivers to make sure the research process served their purposes throughout. The
researcher met multiple times each month with members of the three anti-racism teams to
listen, to share feedback, to dialogue and document what was being said through
participant observation and to observe the racial dynamics of these groups. New-
paradigrn inquiry has sought to change the paradigm in which research is conceived and
operationalized.

Racism and privilege are major factors that challenge this paradigm shift.

Understanding the roots of oppression and its relationship to trust and commmrity

building are part of the dance that is indispensable to doing this work. So is

addressing the challenge of true equal partnerships in community based
participatory research in a world of injustice. Having as collaborators working-
class people of color who consider themselves equal partners and are considered
as equal partners in the research process requires ongoing effort. The effort to
understand racism and all its consequences is work done in the context of
relationships. To empower a community, we must become a community,
supporting and challenging each other as we implement culturally competent,

power-and race-sensitive inquiry (Chavez et al. 2002:93).

As such, this research would most appropriately be recognized as collaborative research
rather than participatory research as defined by some scholars, though these boundaries
are easily blurred.

Because this research has sought to expose racism as it operates within the

settings of the three congregations and to provide opportunities for research participants

48

to give voice to their lived experience of race and racialization, it is embedded in critical
race theory.
Much of the scholarship of CRT [critical race theory] focuses on the role of
‘voice’ in bringing additional power to the legal discourses of racial justice.
Critical race theorists attempts to inject the cultural viewpoints of people of color,
derived from a common history of oppression, into their efforts to reconstruct a
society crumbling under the burden of racial hegemony (Ladson-Billings 2000:
265)
One key aspect of critical inquiry is its recognition that “both method—techniques for
gathering empirical evidence—and methodology—the theory of knowledge and the
interpretive framework that guide a particular research project [are] inescapably tied to
issues of power. . .The central issue is how to bring scholarship and advocacy together in
order to generate ways of knowing that interrupt power imbalances” (Lather 1994: 106).
This has been a significant aspect of the scholar-practitioner approach of this research
project.
Chosen methodology The theoretic framework this research falls within (critical race
theory specifically the racialized social systems perspective) and the paradigm within
which this research was undertaken (collaborative participatory) led the researcher to
choose qualitative methodology for several reasons. The individual racial attitudes and
beliefs of Americans have been studied by a myriad of survey researchers for decades.
But less study has been done on the nuances and subtleties in particular contexts of racial
dynamics and this lends itself to qualitative research. Qualitative research is useful when
the purposes of the research are to understand the events, situations and life experiences

of the participants in the study and the meaning they make of these things; or to

understand the particular context within which the participants act and the influence that

49

this context has on their action; or to understand the process by which events and actions
take place (Maxwell 1996: 17-19). The focus of this research is to understand how
structural and institutional racism is operating at a congregational level as experienced by
both peOple of color and white people within the three chosen congregations and this
lends itself well to qualitative research methods. “Qualitative research is understanding
people from their own flames of reference and experiencing reality as they experience it”
(Taylor and Bogdan 1998: 7).

Survey research has been conducted for decades on American beliefs and
attitudes regarding race but it poses significant limitations for understanding how race is
lived in the United States. Likert-type scales, true/false questionnaires or other such
scales can be useful in obtaining information about how well the research participants fit
into the categories set up by a particular scale; they are of less use in exploring the
intricacies and subtleties of lived experiences. If we recognize and accept the racialized
nature of American society, what needs to be explored is not so much individuals’ overt
beliefs and attitudes regarding race but rather how the society is racially organized and
structured, often in subtle ways.

Traditional survey research is bounded by methodological individualism

and, as such, is fundamentally concerned with individual’s response variation to

survey questions that presumably indicate individuals’ attitudes. . .the most salient

missing element in their conceptual scheme is the issue of power, that is, these
researchers do not connect racial beliefs to a system of racial domination...
traditional survey research systemically underestimates the extent of racially
based beliefs among whites in the contemporary United States. This under-
estimation results from two related problems. First, if the nature of post-civil
rights racial dynamics and dilemmas has changed as many analysts claim,
researchers using questions developed to measure racial attitudes in the J irn Crow
era systematically overestimate the level of tolerance among whites. Second,
because most surveys provide a limited analytical context—check marks on

restricted questions and items often have an ambiguous meaning, and researchers
assume the meaning of an “agree” or “disagree” an “approve” or “disapprove”—

50

the interpretation of their findings is not straightforward. Although surveys,
particularly those that rely on questions that fit new social developments (for
instance modern and symbolic racism), are excellent instruments for uncovering
the broad parameters of racial debates, only through qualitative studies or multi-
methods studies can analysts understand the way in which ideas about race are
articulated and the discursive circumstances in which actors invoke those ideas
(Bonilla-Silva 2001 :60-61).

Qualitative research enables analysts to explore the subtleties and nuances of particular

racial contexts and to examine the meaning participants make of the Situations and life

experiences they encounter.

Overview of Study Design

Many decisions were made in the design stage of this research, such as choices
about sampling, data collection methods, and how to organize the vast amounts of
information collected. The research was conducted in two phases. The first phase sought
to understand how institutional racism (as distinct from individual racism) fimctions
within the three congregations participating in the anti-racism initiative. The second
phase sought to understand the ways in which racism has been internalized by all people
in a racialized society and how this reinforces institutional racism. See the following table
for an explanation of how data were collected, who is it was collected fi'om, and total

number of particular data collections, etc.

51

Table 1- Overview of Research Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Method Used/Type of Number of Data
Information Data Collection Collections
Phase I Team Leaders In-depth individual 6
interviews
Pastors In-depth individual 4
interviews
Team Members In-depth individual 6
interviews
Total individual
interviews: 20
Phase I
Anti-racism Teams In-depth group interviews 3
Congregations At-large In-depth ggnm interviews 3
Total group
interviews: 6
Phase I and Trainings Participant observation 9
11
Team leader meetings Participant observation
(These meetings emerged 6
in the last 6 months of the
data collection)
AR team meetings Participant observation
12
Denominational mtgs. re: Participant observation
AR 4
Caucus meetings Participant observation
10
Joint 3-team events Participant observation
2
Individual mtgs. or Participant observation
phone calls 9
Total participant
observation: 52
sessions
Phase II
Caucus Leaders In-depth individual 4
interviews
Team Leaders In-depth group interview 1
Total Phase II
interviews: 5
Phase 11 Written documents Thematic Analysis Total documents
analyzed: 36

 

 

 

52

 

Data Collection

In this study several different methods were employed to elicit information about
how racism (both individual and institutional) functions within a congregational setting-~-
in-depth interviews with both individuals and groups, participant observation, and
analysis of written documents. Proper procedures for protecting research participants
were followed with the approval of the MSU Institutional Review Board, also known as
the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS).

The decision to collect information from a diverse range of individuals and
settings and using a variety of methods also known as triangulation (Denzin 1970) is
based on the assumption that this technique helps to reduce the risk that research
conclusions may reflect the systematic biases or limitations of a specific method and
allows a researcher to gain a better assessment of the validity of research conclusions
(Maxwell 1996). “Human beings are complex, and their lives are ever changing; the
more methods we use to study them, the better our chances to gain some understanding of
how they construct their lives and the stories they tell us about them’ (Fontana and Frey
2000: 668).

Phase I The first phase of the research began with in-depth individual interviews being
conducted with identified church leaders fi'om all three congregations, including pastors
and each anti-racism team leader from the participating churches. They served as key
informants and provided valuable background information on the history of the each
congregation and on congregational anti-racism initiative. In addition in-depth interviews
were conducted with individual members of the anti-racism teams, paying special

attention to include both people of color and whites from each congregation (See

53

Appendix A—Individual Interview Guide: Church leaders). Next group interviews were
conducted with each anti-racism team (See Appendix B—Group Interview Guide: Each
Anti-Racism Team). The anti-racism teams provided unique perspectives on individual
and institutional racism within these congregations and the interaction among participants
proved to be especially important. For comparison, group interviews were then I
conducted with congregational members at-large (members no_t involved in the anti-
racism initiative) from each of the participating churches using the same questions to
ascertain differences in perspective on congregational racism (See Appendix C—Group
Interview Guide: Congregational members at-large). In selecting participants for the
group interviews with members at-large within the congregation, the researcher
collaborated with the team leaders and used church directories to do a simple random
sampling. Selected members at-large were then invited in an initial letter to participate in
the group interview and these invitations were followed-up with personal phone calls to
guarantee an adequate number of participants representative of each congregation. These
in-depth interviews lasted fi'om one hour to one and half hours and initially followed an
interview guide but the interviews also diverged into other directions as the participants
wanted to pursue other issues or concerns related to racism in their congregations.

In this research extensive participant observation was conducted over the course
of eighteen months at many different types of gatherings—training sessions for all three
teams together, team leaders meetings, individual congregational team meetings, joint
events, follow-up conversations (either by phone or in-person), denominational meetings
where conversations about anti-racism were the central topic, caucusing meetings (which

emerged about six months into the process) where the three congregational teams came

54

together monthly for specific conversations about how they have internalized either racial
superiority or racial oppression and how this affects the anti-racism work they are
pursuing within their congregations. These caucusing meetings provided very rich data
as the dynamics between the people of color and whites were a fascinating mix of
theoretical analysis and honest, gut-wrenching emotional expression that were woven
together as the participants wrestled with how to truly dismantle a system in their
churches that is hurting them all.

Phase II The second phase of the research explored in more depth how racism is
internalized in all people in a racialized society. In addition to extensive participant
observation, in-depth individual interviews were conducted with the emerging leaders of
the persons of color caucus and the white caucus to explore notions of racial superiority
or racial oppression and their impact on the functioning of the congregations (See
Appendix D—Individual Interview Guide: Caucus Leaders). Anti-racism team leaders
were interviewed as a group during the second phase of the research to ascertain their
perspective on the progress made (or lack thereof) in the anti-racism initiative to date
(See Appendix E—Group Interview Guide: Anti-Racism Team Leaders).

Analysis of the content of many written documents including historical
documents about the denomination and the anti-racism initiative as well as documents
prepared by the anti-racism teams as part of their training and follow-up meetings were
analyzed as well to gain insights in an emerging understanding of how congregations are
organized by racial dynamics.

Sampling Careful decisions needed to be made about how to develop a sampling plan

for this study. Church leaders as well as leaders within the congregational anti-racism

55

initiative were selected for inclusion in this study because their knowledge and
perspective was deemed important. However it was also important to hear the
perspectives of the typical congregational member as a point of comparison between
those actively involved in the anti-racism work and those not involved in it.

For the majority of data collection described in Table 1, no sampling plan was
needed as interviews were held with the ‘population’ of individuals or groups that served
as sources of information for this study. More Specifically, in—depth interviews were
held with each of the team leaders and pastors of the three congregations as well as with
each of the three anti-racism teams and caucus leaders. In addition, the author engaged in
participation observation over the course of eighteen months at every anti-racism event
held by the congregational teams. These events included trainings, team leader meetings,
Anti-Racism team meetings, joint 3-team meetings, and caucus meetings. All together,
these direct observations led to data collection from 52 separate anti-racism events in
these congregations.

Sampling, however, was employed with two categories of interviews: 1)
individual interviews with team members and 2) group interviews with the congregations
at-large. Realizing that boundaries needed to be set on whom to talk with, what to pay
attention to and focus on, and what to observe led the researcher to think carefully about
how to make these decisions. For these groups particular attention and care was given to
include as much diversity as possible when deciding who to interview. AS such, for the
team member interviews, I wanted to guarantee that at least one person of color and one
white person were interviewed from each of the three anti-racism teams. In some cases, a

person was selected to be interviewed because he or she represented the only person of

56

that racial background on a particular anti-racism team. For the group interviews with
the congregational members at-large, a random sample was drawn using the church
membership directories as a sampling frame. Data were collected in this case study
thoroughly from all three churches.

How information was collected In this research in-depth individual and group
interviews provided a rich source of information about people’s experience of race and
racism in their congregational settings. Each individual and group interview was audio-
taped and transcribed verbatim as soon as possible after the interview was completed.
“Interviewing is one of the most common and powerful ways in which we try to
understand our fellow human beings. . .each interview context is one of interaction and
relation; the result iS as much a product of this social dynamic as it is a product of
accurate accounts and replies” (Fontana and Frey 2000: 645, 647). In qualitative research
the design for interviewing must be flexible, iterative and continuous rather than prepared
in advance and set in stone (Rubin and Rubin 1995). The researcher needed to respond to
emerging ideas and issues. Individual and group interviews served different purposes:
individual interviews often allowed for more in-depth expression of ideas and
experiences on the part of respondent as well as created space for more probing and
exploration on the part of the researcher. Group interviews relied on the interaction
among respondents to elicit important information and the inquiry could flow back and
forth between structured questions and the participants’ responses and interaction with
each other. Open-ended questions allowed respondents to share their experience and
understanding of the world without being constrained by terms, questions or frameworks

suggested by an interviewer Unstructured interviews with open-ended questions provide

57

a fuller account of the story with rich detail and the depth needed to understand the
complexity of the phenomenon studied (Rubin and Rubin 1995).

Participant observation was one of the most important parts of data collection in
this research. Many writers have argued that participant observation produces especially
great rigor when combined with other methods (Adler and Adler 1994; Schensul,
Schensul, and Le Compte 1999) but caution is necessary because the findings are always
filtered through the researcher’s interpretive lens. Participant observation “progressively
narrows and directs a researcher’s attention deeper into the elements of the setting that
have emerged as theoretically and/or empirically essential” (Adler and Adler 1994:381).
Noting and recording observations in as much detail and as closely as possible to how
they are rendered is important. “The challenge for the researcher lies in the
transformation of observations into field notes, which then constitute a scientific record
of the experience for future reference. The more complete and accurate the field notes,
the easier it is for researcher to catalogue, code, and use them as data. Writing good field
notes involves detailed and concrete observation and recording on a regular basis”
(Schensul, Schensul, and Le Compte 1999:114). Observational data gathering continues
until researchers achieve ‘theoretical saturation’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967); that is, when
new data fit into the categories already devised or when new findings replicate earlier
ones.

The scholarly literature on qualitative research describes a number of ways of
ways a researcher could decide to document findings through different types of writing.
One of the biggest challenges faced in this qualitative study was organizing the massive

amount of data that was collected.

58

The method we developed [involved] jottings, a diary, 3 daily log and three
kinds of formal notes. . .jottings will provide you with the trigger you need to
recall a lot of details that you don’t have time to write down while you’re
observing events or listening to an informant. . .a diary chronicles how you feel
and how you perceive your relations with others around you. . .a log is a running
account of how you plan to spend your time, how you actually spend your time
and how much money you spent. . .field notes are... notes on method and
technique, descriptive notes, and notes that discuss issues or provide an analysis
of social situations (Bernard 1995:181-186).

How the information was organized: Field notes/ journal file/ memos to self A

‘system’ of organization for the vast amount of information collected was needed. In
addition to the transcribed individual and group interviews, jottings were kept of all
meetings, training sessions, phone calls and other events related to the anti-racism
initiative and these were typed by the researcher as field notes as soon as possible after
the data had been collected. A separate journal file was kept to record personal reactions,
reflections, issues, concerns, reading notes during the entire research process. These

' were often turned into typed ‘memos to self which contributed to the analysis by
capturing analytic thinking about the data and by facilitating and stimulating analytic
insights. For example, after reading literature on transformative research and thinking
about this study I wrote in a Memo to Self dated 11-14-03:

“Individuals engaged in transformative political action should ask themselves, as
often as possible, what are the possibilities and foreclosures of openness and
secrecy in given contexts. T ransformative research in this sense, then, furthers
agendas which ...are situational, presented in given contexts and framed by local
conditions...So while the ultimate goal of exposing hidden power arrangements
must never be forgotten, it may be stalled until a more opportune time

arises... Thus, transfonnative politics must come back to a situation and ask of it
again, ‘What ’3 possible '? " (Baez 2002:53).

[ [ This challenges me to think carefitlly about findings as they are embedded
/situated in the particulars of time and place. Not to think strictly in terms of
change, per se but rather of movement. So do I describe where the groups were
at the beginning and how they have seen movement over time? Do 1 frame what
my respondents have shared within the context of ‘what '3 possible? ’ Or will this
lead to a kind of selling—out?? I’m not sure. But these are things to be aware of

59

and think about as I analyze what I have heard and as I think carefully about
patterns, etc. The point Baez is stressing is that research that does not seek to
expose and challenge oppression cannot be called transformative. It may be

valuable in other ways, perhaps, but it is not transformative research. ] ]

“Secrets in the context of oppression foreclose the possibility of an agency that
will resist it... Qualitative researchers must be leery of continuing to conduct
research which...reinscribes notions of power. Such researchers should further
transformative political goals on behalf of historically marginalized groups and
individuals. This requires openness and risk-taking-ufrightening and dangerous,
of course, but necessary for critical agency and movement ” (Baez 2002: 55).

[ [ The issue for me is not so much how to keep secrets but how to

appropriately share information that seeks to expose and challenge

oppression and to do so within some level of accountability to the people I have
interviewed. This whole thing seems like a huge risk and evokes feelings of fear
in me—--will I appropriately hear (or have I heard) what is being said? Will I be
able to hear the words-behind-the-words (my own phrase or where did I get that
phrase?) Will I have the courage to say what needs to be said risking the wrath
of people on all sides of these conversations? I ’ve been reading and thinking
about this for 5 hours straight now. It 's time to take a break and do something

else]]

Also effort was made to find alternate understandings or meanings of particular events or
ideas. “The recursive process of questioning constantly; getting answers; asking more
refined questions; getting more complete answers; and looking for instances that clarify,
modify, or negate the original formulations permits [researchers] to reorder their sense of
what is happening. Especially important is the search for negative evidence, or
instances, events, behavior, or other facts that appear to disconfinn what. . .has already
been foun ” (LeCompte and Schensul 1999: 11). Reading field notes for regularly
occurring phrases, and with an eye to surprising or counterintuitive material that may

need to be clarified is critically important (Miles and Huberrnan 1994).

Sustained engagement/ saturation One of the benchmarks often associated with good

qualitative research is that the researcher is engaged in the data collection process over a

60

long enough period to ensure an in—depth understanding of the phenomenon. “How long
one needs to observe or how many people need to be interviewed are always difficult
questions to answer ahead of time. The best rule of thumb is that the data and emerging
findings must feel saturated; that iS, you begin to see or hear the same things over and
over again, and no new information surfaces as you collect more data” (Merriam 2002:
26). In this study the saturation point began to become clear about 15 months into the
data collection process when the same things were being said repeatedly from different

respondents. It was at this point that themes began to come into focus.

Data Analysis Methods: Audit trail

As is described in much of the literature, qualitative analysis begins after the first
interview and continues throughout (Rubin and Rubin 1995; Crotty 1998). Analyzing
qualitative data involves strategy as well as technique. It involves listening to
informants, reviewing taped interviews, reading transcripts, writing down impressions,
reviewing initial impressions and writing up new ones. The analysis process provides a
feedback loop that informs and shapes future data collection. To analyze is to grasp a
basic understanding of what is said, gain a deeper understanding as time goes on, ask new
questions as they arise and develop theories from all the data and stories before the
researcher. “The ultimate power of field research lies in the researcher’s emerging map
of what is happening and why. So any method that will force more differentiation and
integration of the map, while remaining flexible, is a good idea” (Miles and Huberrnan
1994:65). Every qualitative study requires decisions about how the analysis will be done

and these decisions influence and are influenced by the rest of the research design. An

61

audit trail is one way to ensure that the research has been handled with integrity and
consistency. An audit trail in a qualitative study describes in detail how data were
collected, how categories were derived, and how decisions were made through the
inquiry (Merriam 2002). A qualitative researcher needs to be transparent and reveals the
research steps taken along the way and in this way is accountable for the research
decisions made.

In this section we discuss the steps taken in the analyzing the data including how
the data was processed/cleaned, how a coding structure was developed and checked, how
themes emerged and were developed into displays for review. (See also the discussion of
descriptive validity in the section entitled Validity of the Findings later in this chapter.)
Data processing/cleaning the data Each individual and group interview was
transcribed verbatim from the audio-tape as soon as possible after the interview was
completed. The primary researcher then listened to each tape to proofread it for
correctness/ accuracy and to add aliases for all named participants in this study. Then
each transcript was read thoroughly at least twice. The first reading was to get an
overview and to make marginal notes/ comments about what seemed to be most salient
and illuminating about the contact. The second reading was to type a summary
identifying main issues or themes in this contact, identifying new information leamed and
new issues raised, and identifying potential follow-up questions to be asked.

This summary also provided an opportunity for the researcher to write impressions and
analytic insights as they emerged.
Code development and code-checking Once these preliminary tasks were completed,

analysis began immediately and continued throughout the study, enabling the researcher

62

to progressively focus the interviews. Each completed transcript was coded using
NVIVO software based on a coding structure which was created as patterns began to
emerge in the data about how respondents have experienced race and how their racial
identity was formed through their life experiences. The ways participants in this study
describe their experience of race in their congregations is consistent with concepts and
themes described in much of the theoretical literature about race and racialization,
particularly Frankenberg (1993) and Bonilla-Silva (2003).

The coding structure (see Appendix F—Coding Table) was developed to ensure
systematic analysis of the data. Specifically, the coding table included a name for each
code, a definition and a rule for when to use each code, as well as an example of how it
was used from the data. The development of the coding structure was iterative.
Continued reviews of the transcripts with the code definitions often resulted in combining
two codes or creating new codes. Throughout the initial stages of coding, the coding
structure was revised numerous times (no less than twelve times), trying each time to
make the codes more specific and exact so that each usage of the code was as consistent
as possible.

After completing the coding for the first six transcripts, code-checking was done
by giving several transcripts along with the coding structure to three colleagues to check
their coding decisions against the primary researcher’s. This strengthened the analysis by
tightening the definitions of important concepts because in each instance these
independent code—checkers asked good questions and pushed for clarification about the
usage of each code. Also, they raised issues that had remained unnoticed or unseen

before. For example, one colleague noticed that on a particular transcript there was a

63

repeated pattern where the respondent talked about: 1) understanding the analysis of
racism (cognitive or intellectual) 2) embracing the analysis (more affective) and 3)
making plans to do something about it (know, feel, and then do). This repeated schema
used by one participant for describing how she was approaching racism within her church
had gone unnoticed before—and it led to more thinking more about how a white person’s
motivation for involvement in this anti-racism work is more cognitive/ external while the
motivation articulated by most people of color is more affective lintemal, such as ‘we
want a better life for our kids.’ Much of the literature on qualitative research affirms that
“the process of inscription involves learning to notice what is important to other people
and what one has not been trained to see, and then to write it down” (LeCompte and
Schensul 1999: 14). After getting feedback from these intercoder colleagues, the coding
structure was revised again before completing the coding for the last group of transcripts.
Thematic analysis and displays As data were collected and coded, differences began to
emerge between responses from white participants and participants of color. This was
evident in the individual and group interviews but it was also supported by the data
collected at the many events in which participant observation occurred. In addition, as
data collection for this study proceeded, the emerging set of experiences was found to be
consistent with a body of literature, described in Chapter 2, as the racialization/racialized
social systems literature. Thus, as the different views between whites and people of color
became more pronounced through the data collection, it became clear that the analysis
should contrast the views and experiences of white people and people of color with

institutional racism in their congregations.

64

To accomplish this, all coded passages on institutional racism were pulled and
collated for white respondents and put into a memo or list. This process was repeated for
non-white respondents. Memos such as these provide the researcher the opportunity to
characterize the experience described by each group, looking for internal similarities and
differences. Analyzing the data to look for differences across break characteristics
proved to be one of the most fascinating aspects of the analysis. Four themes emerged as
differences between the responses of whites and of people of color—differing definitions
of racism; race consciousness vs. invisibility of race; awareness of race privilege; and
overt vs. hidden racism. These themes called for further analysis to examine how they
were understood and in what context.

The data were then firrther disaggregated to separate instances of hidden and overt
institutional racism. To accomplish this, a display in the form of a large, four-cell matrix
was developed. The 2x2 matrix consisted of the coded passages (eg. the coded evidence
from the raw data) that described the congregants’ experience with institutional racism.
The 2x2 format separated the evidence according to two break characteristics: 1) race of
the respondent (e. g. white or persons of color) and 2) the nature of the racism: hidden or
overt. Overt racism included passages that indicated forms of institutional racism that
were named, acknowledged or obvious to the respondent while hidden racism included
experiences that were not recognized as racist by the respondent or appeared to be
unconscious or seemingly unknown.

Thus, the display was designed to contrast the experiences of whites and people of
color with both hidden and overt instances of institutional racism. This analysis provided

the basis for the empirical findings in Chapter 5. The cells of these displays when filled-

65

out contain the detail, complexity and richness of the data around the chosen concepts
and break characteristics. In each cell, the coded passages containing the respondents’
views on institutional racism are collected. Displays such as these provide the researcher
the opportunity to readily see connections or disconnections among the data in each cell
and to characterize the experience described by each cell. As this analysis is done, a
summary of the findings for each cell is written so that the findings may be compared and
contrasted across the cells. Summaries make comparisons across cells more tractable, but
at the same time ensure that the findings are rooted to the primary data Shown in the
display.

As the analysis of this display unfolded, particularly on the elements involving
hidden and overt racism, it became apparent that there were subtle yet deep internalized
understandings about race and racial dynamics among the participants. AS such, another
four-cell display was developed to examine the data on internalized racism. This 2x2
matrix is similar to the one described above as it contrasted the experiences of whites and
people of color across the hidden/overt break characteristic. However, it instead analyzed
the language used by respondents and the rhetorical positions they assumed when
answering questions about race and discrimination and what they reveal about
internalized racial superiority and/or internalized racial inferiority. This analysis

provided the basis for the empirical findings reported in Chapter 6.

Validity of the Findings

Validity is an important methodological consideration in any study and is related

to the credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation or interpretation claimed in

66

research findings (Maxwell 1996: 87). How a researcher prepares for and plans to address
threats to validity‘is as important in the design of a qualitative study as in a quantitative
study but the criteria are different. The central question embedded in validity is: “How
do we know when we have specific inquiries that are faithfirl enough to some human
construction that we may feel safe in acting on them, or more important, that members of
the community in which the research is conducted may act on them?” (Lincoln and Guba
2000: l 80).

A vast body of literature on validity in qualitative research has emerged in the last
fifteen years. Scholars are not in agreement about what constitutes appropriate criteria for
judging the validity of a particular piece of research. The dominant positivist paradigm
(as well as post-positivist paradigm) tends to argue for particular procedures that
guarantee validity while proponents of new-paradigm inquiry tend to argue for aprocess
of understanding of a given phenomenon.

Defining types of validity in terms of procedures, an approach generally labeled

instrumentalist or positivist, is not the only approach available. The most

prevalent alternative is a realist conception of validity that sees validity of an
account as inherent, not in the procedures used to produce and validate it, but in
its relationships to those firings that it is intended to be an account of (Maxwell

2002: 39).

Descriptive validity Maxwell (2002) argues for three distinguishable types of validity in
qualitative research. The first type, descriptive validity, is concerned with the factual
accuracy of an account; that researchers are not making up or distorting the things they
saw and heard (W olcott 1990; Maxwell 2002). This descriptive validity is achieved by

intersubjective agreement as seen in justifying a particular claim, for example, through

re-examination of a particular audio or videotape of data. In this study descriptive

67

validity is enhanced by the use of audio-recorded interviews and verbatim transcripts as
well as the proofing such transcripts against the audiotape.

Interpretive validity In addition to descriptive validity, qualitative researchers are
concerned with what the phenomenon under study means to the people engaged in and
with them. Interpretive validity involves hearing and understanding aspects of an
account from the participants’ own language and as such can give ‘voice’ to those who
have been Silenced in the past. “While accounts of physical and behavioral phenomena
can be constructed from a variety of perspectives, accounts of meaning must be based
initially on the conceptual framework of the people whose meaning is in question”
(Maxwell 2000: 49). Furthermore, African-American feminist scholar, Patricia Collins
argues for concrete experience as a criterion of meaning, the use of dialogue in the
assessment of knowledge claims, an ethic of caring and an ethic of personal
accountability (Collins 1990).

The first part of interpretive validity involves hearing the experience of
participants in their own language. As such, this study has focused on giving voice to
people of color and to whites and their lived experiences with race and racialization in
their congregational settings. The second element of interpretive validity, however,
involves understanding these experiences. To improve our understanding of these
experiences and to thus improve the interpretive validity of these findings, various forms
of member checking were employed. At multiple points in the research process, the
researcher took data back to the participants to ask for clarification and feedback. For
example, many respondents of color in this study stated that they think whites are lying

when they say they do not see the racial oppression people of color experience.

68

Numerous times these kinds of statements were probed for clarification and further
explanation about the respondents’ understanding of such comments. Sometimes this
probing happened during the interview, sometimes this probing happened in follow-up
phone calls, and sometimes this probing happened at later meetings. Trying to genuinely
understand what the respondents of color actually mean when such statements are made
required member checking in numerous follow-up conversations, in various settings
involving participant observation and at times bold, honest questioning. '

Member checking also included checking the interpretive validity of early
findings and working hypotheses. For example, at the conclusion of the data collection a
special session was held with the team leaders to share some of the preliminary findings,
to ask them if these findings ‘ring true’ and to listen to their suggestions for fine-tuning.
Theoretical Validity Finally, the question of whether a particular account is an
appropriate characterization of a phenomenon moves beyond whether it is an appropriate
rendering of the ‘facts’ of a given situation as well as beyond whether it has been
properly interpreted. A third aspect of validity, known as theoretical validity, stresses the
relationship of a particular account to the theory of some phenomenon. Theoretical
understanding refers to an account’s firnction as an explanation, transcending merely a
description or an interpretation of the phenomena.

Theoretical validity, in contrast, is concerned with problems that do not disappear

with agreement on the ‘facts’ of the situation; the issue is the legitimacy of the

application of a given concept or theory to established facts, or indeed whether
any agreement can be reached about what the facts are. The distinction between
descriptive or interpretive and theoretical validity is not an absolute, because

(contrary to the assumptions of positivism) objective “sense data” that are

independent of the researcher’s perspective, purpose, and theoretical framework
do not exist (Maxwell 2002:52).

69

In this current study the primary researcher has sought to understand how racism is
embodied in the institutional functioning of the congregations. To the extent that the
findings are consistent with existing theory on race and racism, they are expected to be
more valid. As data analysis for this study unfolded, the congregants’ experience with
racism emerged and was found to be consistent with a body of literature, described in
Chapter 2, as the racialization/racialized social systems literature. Although a diverse set
of literature was read in preparation for this study, this particular literature became the
basis for the emergent conceptual framework for the study. Theoretical validity of the
findings was therefore assessed vis a vis the outcomes that would be expected under this
body of literature.
Peer Review Peer review was used to strengthen the theoretical validity of the study’s
findings. AS such, two additional scholars of race/racism reviewed the data, the displays
and the summaries along the way, to provide feedback to help confirm the findings or to
provide new interpretations of the data. Particular attention was given to finding scholars
familiar with the literature, but also who were 1) fi'om different disciplinary backgrounds
and could bring fi'esh insights as well as 2) fi'om different racial backgrounds who were
instrumental in helping this white researcher ‘see’ some things that had been overlooked.
Here’s an example of an email exchange as a result of one of these peer review meetings
with an Afiican American faculty colleague at Calvin dated 3-31-04:

Dear D--

T ell me again the phrase you used last week when we had lunch-«inherent

abversive (sp .7) work' related to sufi’ering. I 've been trying to think more about

that part of our conversation about suflering and how critical lived-experience is

in the formation of empathy.

I 've also been thinking about the intersection of empathy and self-interest. I think
there's something about self-interest that has to be connected to empathy, too.

70

For example, if a white person does not recognize how racism intersects with
their self-interest (if they don 't see or can 't articulate how racism damages them,
too), then their empathy may degenerate into pity rather than engage them in
action for change. These are just some rambling thoughts. I want to explore this
more. How do white people recognize and articulate how racism hurts them too?
This seems to be a critical piece and not much is written about it that I 've come
across at least. What do you think?

(You know, sometimes, I get afi'aid to share my rambling thoughts for fear of
coming across as so darn naive and clueless....we white people are so much more
damaged than we know and the fact that we are so clueless is just a teeny, tiny tip
of the iceberg. So thanks for being patient with me.) Talk with you soon.

*****#**********

Here ’3 her response:

Oh please do not be afi'aid, you are in no way clueless and I have loved our
discourse over these issues, ramble away, the rambling times have been some of
the richest in coming to new ideas or angles for analysis, question raising, and
insight. I like the self-interest stuff in some ways it reflects back to the
decontextualization issue, how connection/disconnect speaks to the level of
personal intake/ownership of diflicult concepts. 0n the comment I said, it was the
"inherent abversive work of suflering, ” the other side of the coin. Boy, I am
excited to hear where all this conceptualizing and exploration leads you, what
important work you are doing.

Ethical considerations Recent literature on the role of ethics in research indicates
profound paradigm shifts are occurring among some scholars. Lincoln and Guba (2000)
suggest that they have retlrought their earlier position which was that ethics/values play a
part in the inquiry process in the selection of research problem, choice of theoretical
framework, choice of data-gathering and data-analysis methods and presentation of
findings. They now argue that
...[S]ubsequent rethinking of our own rationale have led us to conclude that the
issue is much larger than we first conceived. If we had it to do over again, we
would makes values, or more correctly, axiology (the branch of philosophy
dealing with ethics, aesthetics, and religion) a part of the basic foundational
philosophical dimensions of paradigm proposal. Doing so would, in our opinion,

begin to help us see the embeddedness of ethics within, not external to, paradigms
and would contribute to the consideration of and dialogue about the role of

71

spirituality in human inquiry. . .The expansion of basic issues to include axiology,

then, is one way to achieving greater confluence among the various interpretivist

inquiry models (Lincoln and Guba 2000: 169).

This expands ethical considerations in social research and it involves moving beyond
professional ethics per se (i.e. informed consent, confidentiality, institutional review
boards) to include a more broadly conceived moral discourse about knowledge
generation, involving, for example, interpretive sufficiency (Christians 2000). Scholars
writing about interpretive sufficiency describe it as an important mission of social science
research—in which multiple interpretations are recognized because lives are grounded in
cultural complexity (Denzin 1989). This suggests that social researchers have an ethical
responsibility to study in such a way that findings possess enough depth, detail,
emotionality, nuance, coherence and representational adequacy that will permit a critical
consciousness to be formed by the reader (Christians 2000: 145). This enlarged
understanding of the role of ethics in research leads to new areas of reflection for the
researcher.

Other scholars such as Guba and Lincoln (1989) called for five ‘authenticity
criteria’ they believed to be the hallmarks of authentic, trustworthy, rigorous, or “valid”
qualitative inquiry---fairness (all perspectives and voices should be apparent in the text),
ontological and educative authenticity (which determine a raised level of awareness),
catalytic and tactical authenticity (the ability of a particular inquiry to prompt action on
the part of research participants and the involvement of the researcher to train participants
for social or political action). In a later work, Lincoln (1995) argues that the way we

know is tied both to what we know and to our relationships with our research

participants. As such, seven new standards were developed to inform validity:

72

positionality, or standpoint, judgments; Specific research sites as arbiters of quality;
voice; critical subjectivity; reciprocity (the extent to which the research relationship
becomes reciprocal rather than hierarchical); sacredness (how can science contribute to
human flourishing); sharing the perquisites of privilege that accrue to our positions as
academics with university positions (Lincoln and Guba 2000:182). These are criteria by

which this current study can be judged for its trustworthiness and authenticity.

Reflexivity One of the important ethical issues that researchers need to consider
involves reflexivity, the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher. In
addition to the usual skills needed to conduct robust research (such as intellectual skills,
data management and organization skills), participatory inquiry requires another set of
skills for the researcher—the ability to be reflective and reflexive, the ability to listen
well and to communicate carefully and with thought-fullness, the ability to facilitate or at

least co-facilitate in interpersonal and group settings.

It is a conscious experiencing of the self as both inquirer and respondent, as
teacher and learner, as the one coming to know the self within the processes of
research itself. Reflexivity forces us to come to terms not only with our choice of
research problem and with those with whom we engage in the research process
but with our selves and with the multiple identities that represent the fluid self in
the research setting (Lincoln and Guba 2000: 183).

We constantly ask ourselves the question: How do I understand myself in the process of
this research? A good researcher must understand herself/himself well enough to admit
the internal conflicts that are experienced about how power is shared, about how and

when to make decisions involving advocacy and taking a stand, as well as how to express

73

emotions of hurt, anger or fear, when appropriate. Learning to discern when to speak and
when to remain silent is an important skill that a good participatory researcher has to
develop over time. There is a great deal of ‘intemal’ work that a researcher must face if
she/he hopes to do meaningful work. There are significant lessons in humility, care and
equity to be learned and practiced.

In rigorous qualitative research, the researcher documents this growing
understanding of self in relationship to the research through personal writings and
reflections and draws connections between what the data reveals and how the researcher
understands and experiences the data (Richardson 2000). For example, in a Memo to Self
written early in the data collection process dated 7-8-03, I wrote:

Something that is striking to me as I read through the transcripts to write

summaries (I ’ve now read four of them) is that each one contains

contradictions, conflicts, inconsistencies, and confusions. An interviewed

person may say something in the beginning of the interview and contradict

it later. I ’m struck that this anti-racism work is conceptually hard work

for all of us as well as emotionally hard work for all of us. The analysis we

learned in the anti-racism training, though very helpful, is challenging to
fully understand conceptually and it ’3 easy for people to get confused
particularly about the drfi'erences between Power 1, Power 2 and Power 3.
This early entry reveals an initial engagement with the issues being talked about in the
research and acknowledges that the work iS difficult conceptually and emotionally but
doesn’t reveal how this difficulty is affecting the researcher. In many subsequent Memos
to Self the personal “wrestling” with these issues on a cognitive level and an affective
level becomes much more obvious.

Ethical dilemmas presented themselves in this study such as when to speak and

when to remain silent, when to probe and when to just listen, when to change directions

and when to follow the participants’ change of direction in the conversation. One

74

challenge was knowing when to interj ect an idea or an opinion in an authentic way trying
to be conscious not to manipulate. Doing too much talking or presenting of opinions can
get in the way of participatory research (Chataway 1997). Chataway’s description of
holding back and silencing herself to avoid dominating the research relationship is a
necessary caution. “The important issue is that outside researchers must learn to value
what community participants have to say, listen to everyone in a meaningfirl way, and not
speak as the ‘expert.’ Once again, a dance is involved; balancing silence and speaking
creates the space for community members to express themselves” (Chavez et al.
2002:88).

Ethical dilemmas also emerged in the collection of data and in the dissemination
of the findings. Asking questions, probing, and following the lead of participants
requires the researcher to be aware of the uneven power dynamics which exist in the
research relationship. “In qualitative research, ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with
regard to the collection of data and in the dissemination of findings. Overlaying both the
collection of data and the dissemination of findings is the researcher-participant
relationship. . .When the research is highly collaborative, participatory, and/or political,
ethical issues become prominent” (Merriam 2002: 29).

One of the particular challenges faced in this research was navigating the tensions
between protecting the confidentiality of participants and exposing oppression and unjust
social structures. In an article challenging conventional notions of confidentiality, Baez
(2002) argues that when confronting issues of injustice, the researcher has a
responsibility to expose and resist oppressive power structures. This can pose a dilemma

for the researcher that seeks to protect her respondents by not revealing their identity (i.e.

75

altering data by changing a respondent’s name) but feels morally obligated to not remain

Silent.

[A] ltering data about discrimination resolves (perhaps) only the problem of
confidentiality, while presenting other concerns which are equally -if not more —
problematic for transformative research. For one, altering such data sheds doubt
or undermines the extent of the problem the researcher aims to address, such as
oppression ...More important, altering the data undermines critical agency
because it can accomplish the same thing as confidentiality, keeping oppressive
power arrangements hidden. . .the failure to disclose important information may
have perpetuated the kinds of experiences racial minorities ‘keep having again
and again’ (Baez 2002:40-41).

In response to this provocative article I wrote a Memo to Self dated 11-14-03:

This is my biggest worry... how do I disclose information that is important for the
dismantling of racism but at the same time protect the identity of my respondents.
Sometimes my respondents have said things like, “T ell anybody what I ’m saying,
this situation is so bad that I want the world to know about it ” and other times
my respondents will say things like “You 're not going to tell anyone what I just
said, right? This information is not going anywhere, right? ” Oh, my!
Something that just popped into my memory-«it was a POC that said ‘Tell
anybody ’ and it was a white male who said, ‘You ’re not going to tell anyone,
right? ’ I wonder what this might mean for the relationship of power/control and
how silence might be a tool to maintain power. I guess one possibility that I may
have to do when I am ready to disclose my findings is to check with particular
respondents and make sure they are comfortable with my sharing particular or
specific ideas. But again remember that I don ’t want to share incident-specific
ideas but rather share findings that are conceptually-bound somehow.

Positionality Another key ethical issue in this research involves positionality, the cpen

acknowledgment of differences of gender, race, ethnicity or class and their relationships

to power in the research process. There are at least two sets of power relationships that

Shaped this research. First there is a power imbalance between researcher and the

participants in the research in the sense that the researcher sets the initial agenda, asks the

questions, edits the transcripts, analyzes the findings and eventually publishes it

(hopefully!) This power dynamic was openly acknowledged and attempts were made to

mitigate the imbalance by encouraging participants to add questions for conversation, to

76

re-fiarne a question that was asked, to suggest and move in new directions. A fascinating
study conducted by F rankenberg (1993) of white women and how they understand and
experience their whiteness was valuable for this current study because it helped name and

identify the racial dynamics that exist in research on racism.

The second set of power relations, more specific to this project, are the power
relations of racism itself, and specifically the effect of the color-and power-
evasive discourse on race that [has been] the dominant public language of
race. . .Central to this task was my development of a ‘dialogical’ approach to the
interviews. Rather than maintaining the traditionally distant, apparently objective,
and so-called blank-faced research persona, I positioned myself as explicitly
involved in the questions, at times sharing with interviewees either information
about my own life or elements of my own analysis of racism as it developed
through the research process. This approach served two different fimctions, for in
addition to seeking to facilitate discussion about race and racism in a social
context where privilege and particular discourses on race construct zones of
Silence, repression, and taboo, it served to democratize the research process,
reducing the extent to which I was positioned as an invisible presence
(Frankenberg 1993:30).

Her techniques for attempting to openly address power imbalances were instructive when
my study was just getting underway and throughout data collection and analysis I
returned to this literature to think through how to handle particular situations.

As an invited speaker in a class at Michigan State in April 2004 I prepared the
following presentation:

There have been certain challenges as I have negotiated my role as researcher
and as participant in the anti-racism initiative. I conducted these interviews as a
middle-class white woman with many whose culture and class and education were
difl'erent from my own but who shared a similar religious background. This
religious similarity created some level of trust but there were surprises and
unexpected twists in the conversations that occurred. Sometimes I was viewed as
an insider; sometimes I was viewed as an outsider. In fact, sometimes I viewed
myself as an insider and sometimes I viewed myself as an outsider. One of the
areas I want to explore more is the times I felt surprise when I viewed myself as
an insider but someone responded to me as though it was obvious that I ’m an
outsider... particularly regarding race. The color diflerences (or similarities)
sometimes seemed obvious to others but not to me; other times they seemed

77

obvious to me but not to those I was interviewing. For example, peeple of color
often spoke of whites as the collective "they " / “them ” (as though I was not one
of “them ”) yet there were times when I felt surprise when someone referred to me
as “you ” (since I felt internally as though I was self-identifying with the person of
color, who was speaking). I want to examine this more.

The power positions of researcher and researched are not fixed dichotomies but
shift and move during the course of the study. As the researcher I hold power
in terms of framing the initial questions asked which start the conversation. But
since they are open-ended questions, the conversations can go in many different
directions under the influence of the respondent.

Those interviewed subtly negotiated the power dynamics by determining where
and when the interview was held, what information to share, what questions to
ask me. They decided how they choose to answer a particular question or not,
they decided what to disclose and what to withhold.

For example, there were a few instances when a person said something about
needing to do this interview to “help our sister here out and teach her about
race ” (as though to imply that I can ’t know much about race myself since I am a
white woman who attends a predominantly white church).

These notes reveal something about how participants viewed me as the researcher and

how I viewed myself in relationship to the participants. The notion of positionality was a

completely new idea to me when I began this study and it has been challenging at times

to have the eyes to recognize how much this influences what is said and what is not said

in the course of the interactions.

The issue of privilege created a fair amount of internal conflict at various times

within the research process. In a Memo to Self dated 2-18-03, very early in the process

of trying to initiate the research and negotiate the research relationship with participants I

wrote:

At the invitation of [the Director of Race Relations], I met with the six team
leaders at a Dim Sum restaurant right before Christmas. In retrospect I realize
this was a mistake. [The Director] was trying to accommodate my need to start a
conversation with the team leaders before Christmas so he invited me to an
already scheduled meeting but we should have approached this whole thing
diflerently. Probably I should have prepared a short one page summary of what I

78

was proposing to do and given it to the team leaders before hand. Part of my
confusion about how to handle things at that time was related to my own
ambivalence about my white power and privilege as an educated white woman. I
was unsure how to approach the subject of participatory action research with
them because I felt uncomfortable with my own privilege. Plus I didn 't know the
team leaders very well yet (with the exception of ). The meeting was
awkward because the waiters kept interrupting to serve the food continually and
to let people keep ordering. This broke my train of thought repeatedly and I
found myself unable to think clearly and speak articulately about what I wanted to
do. [The Race Relations Director] mis-read the situation by prematurely
announcing, “Well, I don ’t hear any resistance ” without giving people a chance
to ask questions, etc. [ ------- ] reacted quite negatively because he felt that the
original purpose of their meeting had been co-opted by my presenting the idea of
the research proposal.
The fact that this Memo to Self is written two months after the event in which it describes
what happened, highlights the difficulty I had recognizing how privilege and power
affects dynamics at many levels of human interaction. “For professionally trained
researchers who are white or otherwise advantaged, privilege is one of the most important
and difficult arenas in community based participatory research to address, as it in part
defines who we understand ourselves to be. The outcomes and mechanisms of
institutionalized racism are easier to uncover because they are not personal. To look
internally at privilege conferred due to education, race, sexual orientation, gender, or

organizational affiliation means a long-term commitment to engage in deep inner work

researchers may not be prepared to do” (Chavez et. al. 2002:91).

Summary
How will we know if the research is valid? The challenge of this research is to
understand how the participants in the anti-racism initiative describe the racial dynamics

in their lives and in their congregations and then to understand what this means to them.

79

What is important to interpretive social scientists is how people understand their

worlds and how they create and share meanings about their lives. Social research

is not about categorizing and classifying, but figuring out what events mean, how
people adapt, and how they view what has happened to them and around them.

Interpretive social researchers emphasize the complexity of human life. Time and

context are important and social life is seen as constantly changing (Rubin and

Rubin 1995:34).

The key is to discover the meaning in their words—how are people experiencing
racism in their lives, in their congregations, in the church as an institution—and how does
this lead us to view the world in new ways, to envision a new reality and to work to make
it happen.

To gain a valid understanding of this meaning, this research applies criteria for
descriptive, interpretive and theoretical validity. Rich, detailed observation notes,
verbatim transcripts, and detailed displays are used to ensure descriptive validity. A
focus on lived experience and various forms of member checking enhance interpretive
validity. Peer review with multiple researchers who have lmowledge of the literature on
race as well as the context of the research Site puts the theoretical validity to test. And
finally, the research participants name and describe their experience with racism. These
experiences have been a motivating factor for their action and deeper self-reflection
through the anti-racism initiative. As such, the empirical findings fulfill the criteria for
catalytic validity as well. Catalytic validity refers to the degree to which research moves

those it studies to understand the world and the way it is shaped in order for them to

transform it (Kincheloe and McLaren 2000: 297).

80

Chapter 5 - What You See Depends On Where You Stand:
Institutional Racism in the Church

Modern racism must be understood as lived experience.
from Living with Racism (1994)

Racialization and Religion

Sociologists who study American religion, Michael Emerson and Christian Smith
in their groundbreaking book, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of
Race in America, argue that many people mistakenly believe that racism is on the wane
because of the gains brought about by the Civil Rights movement. They argue that
racism has become more covert in the years since the Civil Rights movement but no less
operative. Emerson and Smith argue that American evangelicals often do not recognize a
racialized society because they use particular cultural tools to interpret and make sense of
their world—these cultural tools, as we described in Chapter 2, include individualism,
‘relationalism’ (attaching central importance to interpersonal relationships), and
antistructuralism (an inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept social structural
influences (Emerson and Smith 2000: 76). They further postulate that because white
Americans in particular are often able to and do live their everyday lives in isolation from
people of color, many white Americans claim that the ‘race problem’ either does not still
exist or is overblown or exaggerated by vested interests. Their central argument is that
white evangelicals (influenced by the dominant American societal trends) tend to
construct reality so as to individualize and minimize the problem of race. In contrast,
Emerson and Smith found that black evangelicals tend to be less individualistic and more

structural in their explanations of racial inequality.

81

The purpose of this research is to further the discussion of the ways racialization
is embodied in religious institutions, in particular local congregations and to understand
the lived-experiences of race for people of color and for whites in these congregations.
The literature on racialization and religion has demonstrated that our institutions can
reproduce racial inequality without any need for people to be prejudiced. To reproduce
racialization in the United States does not require overt racism or prejudice as they have
been typically defined. The racialized social systems fiamework understands that people
need not intend their action to contribute to racial division and inequality for their actions

to do so.

As such, significant variation exists in people’s understanding of race and racism.
For some racism is perceived as individual beliefs and overt actions which oppress
people of color. For others, racism is perceived as more systemic and built into structures
of our institutions. These varying perceptions need to be more deeply explored if racism
is to be confronted in contemporary society. Scholars have documented that individuals’
ideas and beliefs about race have changed in recent decades and this, therefore, has led to
less overt racism operating in the social dynamics of American life today than there was
fifty years ago (Blauner 1972; Feagin and Feagin 1978; Omi and Winant 1994; Loury
2002). However there is much evidence to suggest subtle racism is still operative in
many of the systems of our society and in our institutions (Jones 2000; Bonilla-Silva
1996, 2001).

The strength of the racialized social systems perspective is that it recognizes the
need for a structural analysis without minimizing the impact of individual actors in

combating racism. It recognizes that racism can be best explained by examining how

82

racial phenomena are structured in contemporary settings and how this leads to the
racialization or the racial organization of a particular society. Because this argument
focuses on the structural and systemic rather than primarily on people’s beliefs and ideas
about race, it asserts that, “Actors in superordinate positions (dominant race) develop a
. set of social practices and an ideology to maintain the advantages they receive based on
their racial classification, that is, they develop a structure to reproduce their systemic
advantages. Therefore, the foundation of racism is not the ideas that individuals may
have about others, but the social edifice erected over racial inequality” (Bonilla-Silva
2001 :22). This suggests that the conscious ideas and beliefs that individuals hold about
race and racism are not the cornerstone upholding a racialized society; rather it is the
structures and systems which have been created that perpetuate racial inequality.
[In a racialized society]. . .Institutionalized racism is normative, sometimes
legalized, and often manifests itself as inherited disadvantage. It is structural,
having been codified in our institutions of custom, practice, and law, so there need
not be an identifiable perpetrator. Indeed, institutionalized racism is often evident
as inaction in the face of need. Institutionalized racism manifests itself both in
material conditions and in access to power (Jones 2000:1212).
This includes both the formal structures of an institution (such as constitutions, by-laws
or committees) as well as the informal structures of an institution (such as the customs
and practices) some of which are conscious and some of which are unconscious or
internalized.
In this chapter we turn the Spotlight on one particular institution—the local
congregation—40 explore the relationship between religion and the racialization of
American society. Little empirical work has explored institutional racism and religion or

illustrated how structures within congregations have built, supported and reinforced

institutional racism. This chapter will explore these structures—the specific methods,

83

practices and social relations that produce and reproduce racial inequality within
congregations. Relying on in-depth interviews and participant observation, the data are
used to expose both what is overt and what is hidden as we seek to uncover how race

affects involvement in these congregations.

This chapter begins with an exploration of the variation in people’s perceptions
about what constitutes racism. Then we turn to the main analysis, an empirical
exploration of institutional racism in the three study congregations. Using a thematic
analysis of qualitative data, we demonstrate how race shapes the experience of people of
color and whites in very different ways in these congregations. The analysis is based on
theory presented by Bonilla-Silva (2001; 2003) and Jones (2000) in which institutional
racism is embodied in l) differential access to power based on race and 2) differential
distribution of resources. This analysis of institutional racism presents the emergent
categories of differential access to power, uncovering four different ways in which power

is illustrated in the data: through influence, leadership, information, and accountability.

Variation in Perception and Understanding of Racism

Much has already been written about the differing lenses through which people of
color and whites view and understand racism in their lived experience (Omi and Winant
1994; Loury 2002; Bonilla-Silva 2003). These differences have emerged because of the
differing positions vis a vis systems of privilege or oppression that have been manifested
in how race is lived and experienced. The variation in peoples’ perceptions and
understanding of what constitutes racism is significant as it presents a challenge in trying

to understand how institutional racism operates.

84

We first explore the assumptions that people hold about racism and the language
they use in describing it and how it functions in their lives. The data illustrate that some
are more cognizant than others of the impact race has on their lives and in the functioning
of the congregation. Some exhibit confusion and demonstrate a superficial understanding
of race and racism. When asked they assume racism is primarily overt acts of
discrimination that hurt or oppress people of color. For some, institutional racism is not
widely understood and they are unable to connect racism to systems of oppression.
Others are able to grasp that racism is more than personal acts of prejudice and
discrimination and can see the connection to structural issues. Many of them are deeply

reflective about their lives and their experiences within their congregations.

It is important to highlight what may seem self-evident to some readers—that a
person’s perspective or standpoint on these issues is fundamentally shaped by their racial
position in our society. Numerous examples of these dynamics are evident throughout
this research. As such, in the analysis that follows excerpts are given from the transcripts
of the research participants and the race and gender of the respondents are identified.
These differences play an important part in the analysis. The following key indicates race
and gender of respondent: POC-M = Person of color, male; POC-F =Person of color,

female; W-M= White, male; W-F = White, female.

We begin by examining comments about the racial composition of the
congregations and what this reveals about people’s assumptions about race and racism.
In this study each of the three churches has expressed desires to be multiracial and
multicultural in terms of their congregational make-up. However respondents from all

the churches reveal differing levels of understanding about what a diverse composition

85

actually means. Some people and this was true for whites and for people of color,
suggest that because they have different racial and ethnic groups among their numbers,
this is evidence enough that racism is not occurring in their congregation, i.e. the
visibility of people of color within our congregation proves that racism does not exist in
our organization. In other words, the presence of whites and people of color within the

congregations equates with a lack of racism.

W—F: I think it’s almost hard to be racist or discriminatory in this church, because you’ve got
whites, you’ve got blacks, you’ve got intermarriage, you’ve got Hispanic, and you walk in and
you see this and you’re like — if you’re discriminatory there’s a problem already when you walk in
that door.

W-M: You’re at the wrong church.
W-M: Yes. We need each other so much that you can’t afford to discriminate against anybody.

We’ve» got to have each other. I mean, we need everybody here; we couldn’t discriminate if we
wanted to.

Another respondent describes his congregation as not struggling with racism because
their racial make-up is mixed, suggesting that having a visibly diverse membership
‘proves’ that racism does not exist in their midst.

POC-M: [W]hen I examine or analyze this thing, uh, racism at [this church], it cannot exist
because we’re fifty-fifty, and everybody got — ain’t no white power, ain’t nobody struggling
anymore to get what we want or to have a voice, or to be respected. We’re not struggling like
everybody else is struggling, uh, with this racism. You know, when you come in the front here,
you see someone like you in every different part - black and white and Hispanic... So, uh, we’re
not struggling. Our passion is to be used by God to confront racism in the CRC as a whole; that’s
what drives us.

For others, visible diversity does not necessarily mean that racism is absent and in fact, it
can lull people into thinking that racism does not exist unless you scratch beneath the
surface. Having diverse numbers can be merely cosmetic and does not reveal what

occurs in the actual functioning and operation of the institution.

POC-F: . . .you know, I’m giving pure. . .my reaction, not what anybody else says or thinks or feels
about, this is just where I’m coming from. [This church] has had a face of success for a long time,
but they know, I believe, as well as many others who are a part of a people of color perspective,
that they’re very far away from the actual realization of antiracism. There’s a real good front going
on, and from the outside, from - you know, if you were to lift up off the whole CRC scope of

86

things and look down and try and find a church that’s making some marks with regard to bringing
the races together, [this church] probably stands miles away from all the rest of the churches.
However, we’re a long, long, long ways away from where we need to be. And so I think this is a
make-or-break event for [us], because they’ve gone into all the other arenas with regard to how to
make this work, and so this is kind of like the make-or-break event as far as I see it, because this is
going to really get to the heart of the issues, and this is going to start addressing that paternalistic
attitude that I think is at the heart of what people in the CRC have to come to grips with

The critical difference in these various understandings of visible diversity is related not
merely to how multicultural the congregation looks on the outside nor how long the
particular congregation has been working to address racial reconciliation (one
congregation claims it has been working on this issue for 40-50 years) but to respondents’
continuing ability to deepen their analysis of how race impacts and affects the
congregation’s functioning.

I: This current antiracism initiative that the three churches are a part of, do you see that as being
different than what’s been occurring in this church for years?

POC-F: Yes.
I: And how so?

POC-F: Because what’s been occurring in past years has been more surface, and it’s dealt with
looking multicultural and there hasn’t, like I said, been a real process in place to make it happen.
We’ve just kind of tried this or tried that, ‘or maybe this will work,’ or, ‘we need a certain number
of people on staff,’ or, ‘we need a certain number of people of color as elders or deacons,’ but
there’s been no real process, and this movement is about process, strategies, goal-setting, and it’s
looking at long-term effects of what we do now and actually how building on now will affect this
church ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years from now.

These responses reveal significant variation among people about their understanding of
race and racism. Some have a superficial understanding and assume having mixed-race
congregations is enough to prove that racial inequality does not exist in their midst. By
contrast, others express that to begin to understand racism we must go deeper and analyze
structural elements of how a particular institution functions. Simplistic notions about
racial composition and visible diversity can mask the reality of institutional racism and
make it difficult for people to recognize what lies beneath the surface. This finding

suggests that in order to understand how institutional racism fimctions we will have to

87

delve deeply into people’s lived experience to examine how the structures within the

congregation give or restrict power and privilege. For some, this is not easy to identify.

Analysis of Institutional Racism in Congregations

To begin our analysis of institutional racism we will explore how differential
access to power based on race emerges from the data and how it leads to a differential
distribution of resources within the congregation. Giving power to certain groups
eventually leads to privileges and resources flowing to some but not others. The findings
described below reflect what respondents have described as their experience of race and
racism in their congregations. The experiences of the congregants lead to the
identification of four emergent aspects of differential access to power: 1) influence within
the congregations and whose preferences count in the primary functions of the
congregation, including programming, worship, and outreach; 2) leadership and who has
authority to make decisions; 3) access to information and how that affects who controls
resources; and 4) accountability and how this is handled within the structures of the

congregations.

Institutional racism as seen in who has influence and whose preferences count

In this section we will examine whose preferences count and who has influence
over the primary functions within the congregations by looking at both the formal
structures in the congregation (such as decision-making structures and committees) as
well as the informal structures (such as common practices).
Inclusion and exclusion of people of color within congregation People of color

describe in detail that although whites invite them and often welcome them to participate

88

in the church, their contributions are not recognized and often are not validated. They
describe the strange experience of being highly visible as a person of color yet treated as
though they are invisible. People of color acknowledge that they are not systematically
excluded as might have been the case in years gone by. However they articulately

describe the experience of token inclusion but not substantive inclusion.

1: Let’s think about . . . and describe ways in which people of color are included within [this
church]. Sort of how you view their inclusion . . .?

POC-F: Well, I still see a lot of tokenism.

1: Okay.

POC-F: I still - and this is just my perception, I’m on [this congregation’s antiracism] team. . .So
all I can go by is what people say to me, and the relationships and the things that I know about
what’s going on, but fi'om where I sit, I still feel a lot of tokenism.

I: Mm-hmm So what that means is people of color are invited to do things, but it’s mostly
because they need somebody to make it more colorful, but not necessarily to let their voice and
their real contribution be given.

POC-F: Right. Because even when I was asked to be an elder there, it was more out of, ‘we need

somebody black,’ as opposed to, ‘you know what, you’re a major player. You’ve been around a
long time, you have a major contrrbution.’ They would learn all that after the fact.

The descriptions of feeling tokenized within the congregation have multiple effects on
people of color and on whites. Not feeling invited to participate because of the genuine
contribution they can make makes people of color reluctant to become involved in
substantive ways. At times, those people of color who are included can feel over-
extended and at times bumed-out. Competition between minorities for favored status

among whites can also be very destructive.

POC-F (1): I’ve heard some people saying - I think it was said tonight -um - that ultimately white
folks are in control, so why am I doing this, why amI going to be on council, or. .. They
ultimately have the control.

1: Okay.
POC-F (2): Personally, it does limit your involvement. It has urine. Um, not coming from this
traditional background, that always seems to come up into play as to what they’ve done and where

they gone to school and where they went to church, and all that, so it can be intimidating
sometimes.

89

I: Mm-hmm.

POC-M (1): Like, uh, serving on the council, like when I was in there was probably twenty—five
percent black part of it, and you know it felt. . .I mean, ‘why should I even go? It doesn’t matter.
My vote doesn’t count.’ It didn’t count. And I think that’s what happens if you’re only twenty-five

percent, thirty percent.

POC-M (2): I think it’s kind of like any other system in that it encourages you to take the
mainstream, you know, that if you are a minority on a governing body of the church, you’re
expected to pay homage to the majority by going along with that majority, and so you compromise
— as a former council member -— you compromise positionally because you feel the weight of,
‘don’t come out - don’t get out of line; follow the protocol that’s been laid before you.’ So for
me, it’s unfortunate, but it’s a perpetual kind of, ‘this is the status quo in the church just like it is
anywhere else. You know, we expect you to dance our dance, play our music, do it the way we do
it,’ you know. But then quickly to reference the fact that you were there, you know, giving
approval of whatever this project is.

I: So a person of color is needed there for visibility’s sake, but in terms of really having a voice
and really being listened to, that doesn’t always happen is what you’re saying ? People give lip
service: ‘we want to be diverse, or multiethnic, but we’re not really caring about the voice and the
opinion.’ Is that what you’re saying?

POC-M (2): Yeah. As a person of color on a governing body or council you can give an opinion
and be articulate about giving an opinion, but that opinion won’t necessarily weigh in until your
white counterpart goes along with it. Okay. When it goes - when that happens, then we’re moving
forward, okay. If that doesn’t happen, then ‘you need to come up to our standard.’ That’s kind of
the feeling. Come on .That’s a real feeling. I can feel it even talking about it, that there’s a feeling
of, ‘come on, play ball over here on this playground. Don’t go over there.’

I: ‘With these rules.’
POC-M (2): Yeah. ‘This is the way we do it. Come on, we’re helping you.’

POC-F (2): But at the same time. . .this may not be a good word, but I’m going to use this word;
you can be pimped here a lot.

POC-F (1): Mm-lrmm, I know it [Emphasis in original].

POC-F (2): Okay, when they — when you do speak your mind: ‘well, we want that person again.’
Whether they may listen to him but, ‘that’s a voice — okay, well we have that voice, and that
person’s pretty strong, and they’re not going to. . . ’ But you really wonder, are they really listening
to what you’re saying, and so you become - you can, if you let yourself— this little statue for
them, and that’s where you’ll get asked and asked and asked over most likely. There’s more
people, you know. No, you may not want my opinion. So that gets hard, so you — if you don’t put
Christ in it, it’ll make you real bitter— put a bitter taste in your mouth.

POC-F (l): I was thinking too, on the same line, it creates division, because it can give certain
people the pedestal look, and you are. . . I remember when I was first hired here, an African-
American said to me, ‘you know, you’re the flavor right now, but don’t you mess up, because it’s
over,’ and so that puts pressure on you because you know you’re the one that they’ve chosen

to. . .you are it, and you are there, and if you do anything to ruin that then you ruin it for the whole
nation of people of color. But it also produces — it could produce this, ‘you know, I am pretty
special.’ And they think they’re pretty special, which creates these divisions.

1: Competition.

90

POC-F0): And there is a competition going on, for resources.
The subtlety of including people of color so the numbers look diverse but not deeply
valuing the contribution offered, serves to perpetuate the status quo in the racial structure
of the congregation. This finding has been documented in the literature and fits with
comments made by a number of respondents in this research.

[T]he civil rights rebellion, in conjunction with other social, economic, and
demographic changes that transpired in the 1960s, dramatically altered the nature
of racial structure in the United States. I have argued that a new racism has
replaced the old structure and that today ‘white supremacy’ is reproduced in a
mostly institutional and apparently nonracial manner that relies on token
inclusion—rather than on the systematic exclusion—of racial minorities fiom
certain jobs and places and does not depend on overt expressions of racial
hostility (Bonilla-Silva 2001 :67).

In general, respondents of color describe that they have less influence in the congregation
and this is also reflected in comments about whites being given instant respect and trust

without having to do anything in particular to earn it.

I: [Can] you if you can think of any examples of hidden racism within the congregation...
we’ve been talking a lot about how racism is a hidden — it’s covert, it’s subtle, it’s hard to see, for
all of us, whites and blacks.

POC-M: In the decision-making structure. ..you. . .it’s interesting, I’m just learning the dynamics
of organized church... In the decision-making body you look and you listen and some decisions
that would be made could very well be blamed toward racism. A white person is going to have
more influence on the Consistory than a black person, and to me that’s hidden racism If I’m just
as educated and know just — know my facts as well as this white person and you’re more willing to
listen to him than you are to me, to me that’s hidden racism... Ifl’m white and I’m in this position
and I’m pursuing something I’m more influential, and that shouldn’t be the case, you know, that
shouldn’t be the case.

I: Mm-hmm. It sounds like you’re almost saying that being white they get more trust and respect
automatically and it shouldn’t be the case.

POC-M: It shouldn’t be the case, but that’s the case.

Thus one of the first findings is that whites have more influence and their plans and ideas
often take precedence in the functioning of the congregation. People of color describe

that either 1) they are marginalized and their voice is not heard; their opinion is not

91

honored or 2) because of small numbers of people of color willing to become active, the
ones who do are over-used and over-worked and they can begin to compete among
themselves for favored status. Next we will examine the ways this differential influence
is manifested in the primary functions of the church—worship, music, and programming.
Worship and music The first example of differential influence because of race can be
seen in one of the primary functions of a congregation-«worship. Worship, liturgy, and
music play a central role in the life of any congregation and decisions about how to
structure these aspects of congregational life are generally made by committee. Within
the congregations studied there is differing understanding of the impact race has on
worship and music. In an interview with a white respondent who has just said race
operates ‘unconsciously’ within the congregation, he makes the following comment

about music.

W-M: You know, and here’s one of those things that we as a church will have to think about: the
decisions that we have made in terms of worship; how much of that creates an obstacle to people
of color? And is, for instance, music, you know, style of music, the kind of music; is that a racial
thing or is it a cultural thing, and then, you know, how do you separate those two things? And so if
you say Bach or the Psalter Hymnal is not necessarily racist how then do we make so that it is
inviting ton-people who are not familiar with those sources of music? I mean that’s a really big
question. I mean does it mean that we now and again put in, you know, a black spiritual or does it
mean that. . .I don’t know what it means. I mean, and that’s part of - I mean it’s that kind that of
question that needs to be constantly sort of churning so that when we do make decisions, even if
it’s not made perfectly, it will influence the decisions that we make.

Just including songs from nonwhite traditions is not enough to ensure that people of color
feel welcomed or included in the congregation. A respondent of color from the same
congregation describes one way she has felt excluded is the lack of recognition for the

contribution her people’s music has made historically.

POC-F: You know what, um, I was there the other Sunday and they were doing a Negro spiritual.
So what they do is they call it ‘American traditional song.’ It’s a doggone Negro spiritual, you
know, we’re proud of that. Anybody can sing it, but don’t change - like I said, don’t change the
words of the song, don’t change the, you know — because under the next song it will be written by
Isaac Watts or Frances whatever, and then they go today. . ., and you know. But then, you know,
you got ‘American traditional song.’ Maybe so, but for a long time it was separated. I’m not

92

ashamd that it’s a Negro spiritual. That’s what they used to call them, so maybe they’ve changed
that, but I wasn’t informed of that, you know. [chuckles]

Although these examples do not reveal an intentional exclusion of people of color, the
subtleties of how programming decisions are made do, at times, reveal differential access
to and influence on the services and opportunities within the congregation based on race.
The music and worship preferences of people of color can be overlooked and not
validated in the same way that white preferences are.

Church program planning Differential influence within the congregation is reflected in
the planning and decisions about church programming. This has been expressed by
people who feel fi'ustrated when church meetings are scheduled during the workday and
they cannot attend because of work commitments or childcare obligations. As we will
see this occurs because significant differences exist in the life experiences and
opportunities available to whites versus peOple of color. Race-associated differences in
life experiences, opportunities and social relationships have been well documented in
much of the scholarly literature on racism (Bonilla-Silva 1996; Emerson and Smith,
2000; West 2001).

People of color describe the challenging life situations they face in terms of socio-
economic differences and how this is easily overlooked by whites who tend to control the
planning of church programming. These socioeconomic differences not usually
considered when church meetings are planned or even sometimes when programming
decisions are made. Here a respondent of color describes how these differences can have

a subtle yet powerful affect.

POC-M: Sometimes we’re not very sensitive to the life of a non-white, middle class person and
how more maybe drama there is. There’s just stuff going on and the needs that present themselves
almost daily are different, so I’m not sure how we exclude people other than process.

I: What are some of the needs that are different that play out in this drama you’re describing?

93

POC-M: Well, there are some things that - for exanrple, in the summer our non-middle class, non-
white folks don’t go to the cottage, don’t go on vacation. They’re looking for quality places for
their kids, so we tend to shut down in the surmner most of our churches... Programming stops
right before school ends and doesn’t start back up until now, September. Well that’s because our
white, middle-class folks who run the church generally take off; vacationing, trips of - all kinds of
trips, whether it’s missions or whatever, but they’re gone, and so the assumption is everybody else
should be gone too. Well, our population’s in the neighborhood, okay, struggling through summer.

I: They can’t go anywhere.

POC-M: Well, usually they don’t have the means to go. The extra income isn’t there to go, so
there’s a difference in the way we look at life. There’s issues in terms of car repair. A good
example would be — I was sharing with someone that my car broke down and I had to figure out
how to get it home, and for him it was a significant moment, because he looked at me and said,
‘You know, when my car breaks down I call a tow truck and I get a rental.’ Well, that’s a different
world, and I don’t even consider myself to be all that far out of middle class, okay, but I — you
know, I just think about, ‘How am I going to get it home?’ So there’s a lot of those issues. There’s
issues — you know, it’s interesting to hear someone who is what I would consider solidly middle
class talk about someone being laid off and how hard it is, and I’ve been part of conversations
among non-whites who look at those folks and go, ‘You just don’t understand. I mean, you don’t
know what roughing it is,’ because if the same thing happens to someone who is less middle class,
and generally those are the non-white folks who are less middle class, they are in danger of losing
a house, they are in danger in of losing a car, you know, they’re in danger of having their lifestyle
severely disrupted, not just the loss of an income. So there are differences, everyday econorrric
differences; there are family differences. We tend to be a little more enmeshed with our extended
family. It’s not unusual to have an extended family member living with us, or on the verge of
coming or whatever. That’s more of a planned thing and a convenience thing for our white
counterparts, not to say that they’re not feeling it, because I think now because of the economy
everybody’s doing more of it, but nevertheless for us it’s tradition, for our white counterparts it
tends to be more of a convenience thing. Although now again, with parents living longer and kids
staying at home longer, I think everybody’s starting to realize, ‘Ooh.’ But I think there’s
differences even in terms of planning. Some of us don’t have the luxury of planning, because
we’re not sure how we’re going to make it through today, or this week, or this month, so for us to
plan for next year almost seems ludicrous to us. We just don’t have that. It’s more of a survival-
reaction kind of deal.

I: Live in the present.

POC-M: Yeah, because we can make plans, but we don’t really know how our situation’s going to
be next month. You know, next month my car may not be functioning or I may have an extended
family member who’s taking up a considerable amount of my time or my job may be not so stable,
or whatever, but there seems to be more variables in the non-white community that impact our
daily life than in the white community. It’s kind of weird, because sometimes I think it’s just
economics, you know, that if we could just raise the bar on both side then we could both complain
about — just about the, you know, the stuff of life. So sometimes I think it’s an economic thing, but
the other - you know, the other inequity is that I still have to worry about being out late. I worry
about — you know, if I have a little — like I have a taillight that has a crack in it and the light is
showing, I’m thinking, ‘Oh jeez, just a matter of time before I get stopped and have to go through
the routine.’ So there are differences that are part — almost differences that we’ve become
accustomed to — ‘This is just the way life is’ - that impact us daily, that make us think about race
right away, because I just dealt with it at the bank, or I just dealt with it when I got stopped, or I
just dealt with that because I went to a store and they were looking at me funny, or I just dealt with
that because I was calling the doctor and they figured out that my name’s [Hispanic surname] so
they wanted to make sure that I could get up for an eight o’clock appointment, or I dealt with that
with a neighbor because we were playing basketball, and it was late, it was ten o’clock, and you

94

know, she had to go to work. The assumption is ‘You obviously don’t.’ You know, so there’s -—
there are the race things that you deal with day in and day out. You know, there’s the economic
stuff and then there’s race stuff that just makes our life different.

Program planning decisions that are controlled by whites can exclude people of color in
very subtle ways. This response reveals the challenge people of color and whites face
when working together in congregational settings to plan and organize programs.
Because of vastly different life experiences that have disadvantaged people of color and
because of their position in the racialized social system in the United States, it is easy for
them to be overlooked or excluded because their priorities are different than the dominant
group. This is another example of how whites are more influential as their preferences
take precedence.

Informal, yet common practices In addition to the more formal structures of the
congregation that tend to give preference to whites, there are informal ways—customs
and practices that are more subtle and almost invisible that perpetuate the racialized
social system and can reveal differential influence. One example of this is the subtle way
people of color are singled out to speak on behalf of other minorities. People of color also
describe the experience of being asked to be a representative for an unnamed nonwhite
collective and to speak on behalf of it. “What do ‘you people’ think about that?” Whites
are never asked to speak on behalf of all whites; rather a white person is given the
privilege of speaking for him/ herself. We will look at two examples here. The first is a
cross-racial exchange in which a black man is asked to explain black behavior. The
second example (from a different interview) reveals how having to ‘represent’ the
minority and give an opinion for the collective is both draining for the person of color

and it is rrrisguided, assuming that one person can give the opinion for all minorities.

95

I: [B—], one of the things you said to me before we actually started was that you’ve been a
member of this church a long time and when you came it was a predominantly white church, that
it’s changed. Talk a little bit more about that.

W-M: Well, I’m trying to count for it. Well, we had people here that didn’t want to be interracial,
so they left. They were old-time members. Some of them live around here, but, you know, they
disappear on you. So that’s just one thing. Uh, all the rentals, or one thing or another, changed
things. Why would they have moved here - blacks, Danny? [asking a black man to speak for all
blacks]

POC-M: (spoken softly)-the rent.

W-M: Cost, or school, or what?

POC-F: Might have been just the neighborhood.

W-M: Hm?

POC-F: It might have been just the neighborhood.

The white man is trying to understand why blacks have moved into the neighborhood
near the church and he turns to a black man and asks him to speak on behalf of others. In
the setting where this occurred, it appeared to be an innocent question asked in a very
natural way. But consider the subtle racism in the exchange. The white man would not
generally be asked a similar question about why whites act in a particular way.

In the next example, a person of color describes being asked to represent a
nonwhite minority and what he considers a ludicrous expectation that he even could

speak on behalf of all nonwhites.

POC-M: Urn, we’re always representing, you know, always representing the minority. If we’re
anywhere close to a majority pool we have - we will be called on to represent, and that gets old.

1: Instead of being able to speak for just yourself you have to speak for others?

POC-M: Yeah, when’s the last time someone asked you, ‘Hey, what do you think white people
think about this?’

I: Mrn-hmm, mm-hmm.
POC-M: You know, it’s given; I mean it’s like everybody knows what white people think about

that I guess, but we want to know what non-whites think, and there’s a lot of non-white folks that
don’t think like me, or that I don’t think like them.

96

These examples serves as subtle reminders that a person of color is viewed as different
and never quite belongs in the congregation in the same way that a white person does.
This is not a formal structural aspect of institutional racism but it is a common practice,
albeit informal, that serves to maintain whites in positions of superiority while
reinforcing a subtle inferiority on people of color.

Race-based privilege is revealed in who has more influence within the functioning
of these congregations and in whose preferences count. Whites’ ways of organizing and
planning for worship and music often take precedence over nonwhites; white priorities in
terms of programming and process often take precedence over nonwhites; whiteness is
the assumed norm. As we will see, the assumption of white superiority is manifested
also in how leadership is handled within the congregations, how information is shared

about organizational processes, and in how accountability is structured.

Institutional racism as seen through leadership structures

Leadership is an important aspect within any organization. How decisions are
made and how leaders are selected, developed and utilized reveals something about what
is valued by those within the organization. Many participants in this research have
described that the power structures in all three congregations are still predominantly
white despite the racial make-up of the congregations being racially mixed.
White leadership easily perpetuated This is revealed in the process for leadership
selection. White leadership perpetuates more white leadership in very subtle ways. The
data show that whites often do not consider or think much about race when making

decisions and this can lead to maintaining the status quo. Whites are often not aware of

97

the impact of their own race nor do they think about the impact on nonwhites during

decision-making. This relates to the assumption of whiteness as the norm.

W-F: Well, one of the, one of the things, well, I guess one of the things that I see pretty clearly is
we don’t think about the... race when we are making decisions. And so, uhh, it really does seem
to me that we have perpetuated a white leadership, by just doing things that way, and--- and
successive leadership comes from white person to white person and we just haven’t thought that
that’s even a process we’ve chosen. And one that is pretty well set--- firmly--- and so to, to
change that with consideration for people of color is, I think, going to be a very diflerent way of
making decisions.

White leadership is perpetuated almost unconsciously just by doing things the way they
have always been done; decisions are considered and made without thought of race and
its implications. ’

Obstacles to nonwhite leadership Even when a congregation wants to confront this
perpetuation of white leadership through revisions in their recruiting and nominating
processes, particular challenges have to be faced and obstacles overcome. First, the data
collected through participant observation and through interviews reveal that it is not a
common experience for whites to submit themselves to persons of color in positions of
leadership. This can create dissonance, uncertainty, and hesitation. Second, as we have
seen, people of color are often reluctant to assume leadership roles because they assume

or fear it will be a waste of their time.

W-M: --one of the legacies of racism is that people of color tend not to step up to the plate or
have inferiorities sewn into them, the challenge of having them lead and lead white people is quite
huge really.

I: Mrn-hmm.

W-M: For you and I, I think a big challenge for white people is, ‘okay, is there a dentist, a doctor,
a lawyer, a pastor, a counselor, who I will submit myself to in a significant way,’ or you might
even say intimate way, like doctor or dentist, ‘that I would intentionally choose?’ That’s not our
experience. Our experience is to serve a person of color, to tutor them or something like that, but
to put ourselves under their authority as in preacher or elder or — like in this church... or in other
things. That’s where we tend to go, ‘oh, now wait a minute. Maybe they’re not competent,’ or
whatever. [chuckles]

I: Mm—hmm.

98

W-M: ‘They don’t speak my language. I’m not comfortable with that kind of stuff.’ So that’s a big
challenge.

Because of the legacy of white control, sometimes people of color are reluctant to step
forward and take on leadership roles because they feel their contribution won’t be valued

or their voice won’t be heard.

POC-M: I think a lot of that has to do with the structure. There are some of us that prefer not to be
part of the status quo structure, so you know, if you’re going to invite me to be part of a leadership
deal but basically all I do is go to meetings, um, and I don’t have much of a voice there, then why

should I be part of that?

Even when a congregation works intentionally to have multiracial leadership, they face

challenges in recruiting and maintaining people of color as leaders.

POC-F . . . getting people of color to participate in sonre things is like pulling teeth. We have to, in
some of our job postings, we state openly that we would prefer or we will only hire a person of
color. Sometimes when we do diaconal and elder nominations we say we have so many spots
open, but whatever number of these spots are slotted for people of color, because we are
intentional about getting a racial balance in our leadership and on our staff. See, and there again, I
think because we look multicultural, but there’s nothing happening underneath on the foundational
levels of this church, is why we look multicultural on Sunday morning, but when it comes to
ministries, leadership, staff, for whatever reason people of color aren’t there; they won’t step up to
the plate.

This difficulty of finding nonwhites willing to assume leadership within the congregation
can be caused either by whites’ unwillingness to relinquish control and submit
themselves to the authority of people of color. Or it can be caused by the reluctance of
people of color who are unwilling to step forward and serve as leaders because they fear

their contributions won’t be valued and they will waste their time.
Institutional racism as seen through access to information and control of resources

Another important component of institutional racism is analyzing who has access

to information and who has the ability to use resources to achieve desired purposes. In

99

the context of the congregations studied there are indications of differential access to
information based on race and therefore differential control of resources as well.
Knowing ‘the system ’ Knowing the system or process to get something accomplished
and/or to take action in an institutional setting is an issue of power. The data show that
predominantly white churches function differently than churches that are predominantly
black or nonwhite. Knowing the ‘system’ is critically important in a white church if a

person wants to make something happen.

W-M: Well, here’s a way to understand it. In the black church, still today, and particularly in
Grand Rapids, the way you get things done and the locus of authority is in the pastor. It’s
relational, in fact even the way black people speak about going to church, they talk about ‘going to
so and 30’s church.’ And so how do you get things done in the black church? The pastor is sort of
chief of the tribe, and he might do that sensitively or more autocratically, but — so I’m not making
a judgment about that person so much as just, that’s the way things happen there. And it’s still
true. .Ifyou want to get anything done in the black church you have to go to the pastor, or his
assistant . . . And in the white church you have to know the system; you have to know the process
and you have to know what the personnel policy manual says, and dot, dot, dot, dot. So black
people are excluded just because our system is set up white. . .I don’t know if I’d call it

Christian Reformed, but it’s certame white. So it’s not so much who you know, it’s, ‘Do you
know the process?’ And so black people will get cut out of stuff all the time or their proposal
won’t get to the table or whatever, because they didn’t do it right. Sometimes we catch it and say,
‘forget the process,’ or... explain the process, or. . . whatever.

Who knows the process or system and who does not is an issue of power. Beyond just
knowing the process or system to get something accomplished within the congregation is
observing who knows how to access resources (and then who actually does access them)
and who controls the resources within the congregation.

Organizational processes In all three congregations respondents described that
budgeting, allocation, expenditures, and management of resources reflect preferences
being given to whites. Some respondents of color describe that these organizational

processes within the congregation excludes them.

POC-M: Well, you know, the whole budgeting process is one big hidden racism, because the
process, the numbers - it’s not so much the numbers as it is kind of the way it’s presented, you
know. You could easily get lost and either you go, ‘yeah,’ or you don’t know. So there hasn’t been
an attempt to be inclusive in the budgeting process, you know, to take the time to explain. You
know, ‘Here’s this line-item. This is how much we allocated to it, this is why we did it, these are

100

the people who had input into it,’ you know, or even backing it up before that; saying, ‘We’re
starting the budget process. These are the folks that have responsibility over this part of the
budget. Any questions, any ideas, you know, feed them to this person who will take them to that
group. They’ll deal with it, that way you’ll see what they recommend after they make a
recommendation they can see it in the line-item But some of the process explanation, the ‘why we
do’ and the ‘how we do’ aren’t evident. I mean, you get a budget sheet and you go, ‘uh, oh, okay.’
You’re not part of the process. “Well, why isn’t there money for. . .?’ ‘Well, you - we voted on the
budget, and we approved the budget. You didn’t speak up.’ So I think some of that — we’ve had
times too where we’ve felt like the executive committee of the church was making decisions.
Well, you know, they have the right to do it, but there’s no minority representation on that
committee.

This response reveals that the how’s and why’s of particular processes are not obvious to
all members. Conscious deliberation to guarantee that all members understand how
these processes work in the congregational settings is often absent. Being unfamiliar with
organizational processes that involve financial resources can lead people of color to feel
excluded within the organization. This can be seen through preference being given to
whites in the acquisition and control of resources and in how priorities are decided.
Control of programs and resources within congregations In this study people of color
articulately claim that whites need to maintain control of programs and of resources and
one obvious way is their needing to manage the money. Assumptions are made that
whites know how to manage money and at times they are given responsibility without
having to earn it. Furthermore, respondents of color describe that the priorities of

nonwhite people are not as respected as are the priorities of whites.

POC-M: Well, you know, for me, the power and structure - it’s not necessarily

power and structure, it’s the money. It’s who controls the money, because whoever controls the
money controls what happens, and so probably the worst that we’ve suffered is when we have
someone who is not white in a position of authority and that person is reporting out - we have a
tendency right now in the environment we have, we have a tendency to say — and I don’t know
that we actually say it, but this is the reality - it is good for someone who is not white to get a
person who is white to oversee, so that they can make the money, so they can account for money,
so they can - because that way it will be received. If the person of color is handling money or
basically overseeing a budget, generally they can’t.

1: That’s the assumption
POC-M: It’s kind of the assunrption, so what it does is it really does limit people from getting

involved, because the inadequacy, the lack of equity, is seen very clearly. You know, if you’re in
there long enough you see that so and so can spend money whenever he feels like it and turn the

101

receipts in. So and so needs to make sure he gets it approved so that, you know — and so those
kinds of issues tend to have a severe impact on involvement and how the thing is set up. The other
thing is that the allocation of money brings priority with it, and so if priority is a non-white
priority, if there’s no money it won’t happen, or it will happen under duress. And so I think we
tend to. . .our structure at this point is not as giving to the non-white person. It’s much easier to get
this done, get something done, through a white person.

I: It almost sounds like there’s not a trust. You haven’t said that, but that’s what’s subtly implied
here is that ‘We don’t trust a non-white as much as we trust a white,’ in a subtle way.

POC-M: Right.
Among whites there is little recognition that white control is the assumed norm.
Yet racism that appears hidden to whites (i.e. ‘this is just the way we do things here’) can
feel like overt discrimination to people of color. It is striking that people of color express
that their requests may or may not be given priority and that in order to get something
done in the congregation it is easier to do it through a white person.

In another conversation about how race affects a person’s involvement in the
congregation, a respondent of color articulates her experience of observing whites usually

wanting to have things done their way without a sense of mutuality.

POC-F: They become controllers. The control factor is just real prevalent. I rarely ever detect the
attitude, ‘you know, I’m at that point where I realize you have a lot to give me. I have a lot to learn
from you. Are you teaching any classes here? Is there any way that I can be a part of something
that would give me more of you?’ The total opposite of that is true. ‘We’re going to have this
class, we’re going to have that class, we’re going to have this support group, we’re going to do
that, and I’m going to teach it, and you’re going to learn, and then we’ll all be good happy
Christians.’

1: Mm-hmm.

POC-F: And sometimes it’s frustrate - you know, I’ll do something public and people will
approach me and say how blessed they are and how much they really benefited from it, but it’s
sometimes almost in shock.

I: That you could make such a contribution?

POC-F: Yeah. And those are the types of things. . .that’s the kind of stuff I hear.

102

The experience that people of color describe is thatmany whites assume they are to be in
control—whites are to be the givers and people of color are to be the receivers. Whites
are to be the leaders and decision-makers while people of color are to be the followers.
People of color describe that whites often operate from a ‘savior mentality’ in
their relationships with nonwhites. ‘How can we help fix your problem?’ or ‘Can we
help you people?’ Another way to understand how whites maintain control in these
congregations is to examine how they handle outreach or ministry to the poor.
Unconscious assumptions about who is to serve and who is to be served perpetuate
stereotypes and prevent people from examining the issue of unearned white privilege.
People of color describe the experience of being treated with paternalism and how whites
seem to have a general ‘fix-it’ mentality when they first begin interacting with people of
color. Whites often assume what people of color need without asking them. In an
interview with a woman of color, she describes working on a mission statement for an
outreach job within the church and the assumptions made by a white person about the

black people in the neighborhood being ‘broken.’

POC—F: One person that looked at [the] mission statement added this line; they said that, um, ‘we
want to help broken people and bring them to wholeness.’ And one of the things that I’m learning
in this analysis training, but also in other trainings is that the brokenness occurs for white people
and people of color. It occurs for everybody, so we aren’t just about helping those broken people
down there that we want to help out of the gutter, so the mission statement [now] says

something like, ‘we’re working in such a way that the Holy Spirit brings to wholeness [church]
members and members of the neighborhood, so that when we work together with each other,

there is a mending if you will, a healing of is, all of us; the folks in the church and the folks
outside the church.

Being able to acknowledge brokenness as a common human experience without tying it
to race begins to confront the paternalism that often is woven into the outreach work the

congregations undertake.

103

Some whites do recognize that they have been in the role of the helper and how

this can reinforce inequities and can maintain uncomfortable power imbalances. But

feeling the discomfort of such a situation and knowing how to change it are two different

things.

W-F: Well, I would say we are, I think we have a lot of ministries where we have been the helper,
the fixer. And, urn, it seems like every time we get involved in outreach ministries, it’s to people
who are, have less money. That’s a lot of what we provide is money, food, tutoring, and that, right
away, puts us in with a person of color who doesn’t have money and education, and so then we
have, we have the power. We hold the control. So, ahh, and I think it’s been an uncomfortable
position. I don’t think [our church] has enjoyed that position, and I don’t think we’ve done real
well in it. Like I don’t think, I think relationally with the people we’ve been working with, it’s
never, I wouldn’t say it’s never been good. So there’s a, I think there’s a, a desire to do something
else, without maybe knowing what that might be. But I think that some of that discontent has,
umm, encouraged people to do this analysis to maybe be able to look at things in a new way, a
different way. And you realize when you are doing helping ministries that you never, you never
make any progress. Nothing ever changes.

I: So you seem to perpetuate. . .

W-F: Yeah, you see the system. People just still don’t have jobs. People still need food ten years
from now. The same people. You think, well, what have we done to help them? Kept them alive
in their misery. So there’s a, there’s a certain element of, of, mu, disappointment, that, that we
don’t know how to, how to work with this and make anything better. So...

The antiracism analysis has helped participants begin to examine the elements of

institutional racism and begin to recognize how race privilege leads to white control of

plans, decisions, funding, and programs. Gradually participants have realized that one of

the missing pieces in all this that could potentially confront these inequities is the lack of

accountability to people of color. In another interview a respondent describes not only

how church programs are run by and controlled by white people with white priorities

dominating, but also how this often occurs with no accountability to a community of

color.

POC-F: Most of these programs are run by white people. Most of these programs have no
accountability to a community of color at this point. Um, yeah, and most of these programs report
back to the predominantly white structures of [our church], be it deacons, elders, or council.

1: So does that mean that the whites in the congregation control the resources primarily too?

104

POC-F: Yes. . .They have the resources and they control_the resources, nun-hmm

These responses have highlighted how resources are managed and controlled
within congregations in ways that favor whites.
Control of programs and resources between congregations Among some of the
churches in the antiracism initiative there has also been ongoing conversation about
forming a partnership between them for shared ministry. Next we will examine how two
of the congregations have managed and allocated resources between them for joint
ministry and outreach. Extensive dialogue has occurred between these congregations and
has led to decisions about the need to go beyond doing pulpit exchange or joint
antiracism work to include their common desire to do outreach into their respective
communities and how to assist one another in those ventures. However there has been
confusion about what the partnership between these two congregations should look like.
There is evidence of a lack of understanding about what partnership might actually mean
particularly whenever the conversation turns to economic considerations and the sharing
of resources.

One of the churches studied has been the recipient of a large grant to establish an
internship program for recent seminary graduates to gain ministry experience. They
have recognized that one of the other churches could provide valuable inner-city ministry
experience for their interns. However the inner city church has not been involved as an
equal partner in all the discussions about how to utilize the internship program for the
mutual benefit of all and they have not received any financial resources for the work they

have done. The well-resourced church has not provided financial resources to the inner

city church for the service they are providing to the internship program. The assumption

105

is this poor church will be glad to receive additional personnel without any cost to their
budget.

Excerpts fi'om interviews with members fi'om each congregation describing their
understanding of partnership reveal a lack of understanding about how control of

resources can have a damaging effect on partnership.

W-M: But now take the [interns]. I mean we want them to be involved in the ministry at [----
Church]. Now one of the reasons for that is we want to have a partnership with an inner-city,
people of color community.

I: Mm-hmm.

W-M: So when that goes through the funnel - through the final, ‘okay, let’s do it,’ that piece will
be decided in light of that ideal that we get heavily invested in an inner-city church. Uh, so it’s not
that you add a new piece into the structure, or you know, a little side group, but that the regular
channels have that as part of the, I don’t know, part of the reasons why we do what we do.

I: Mm-hmm.

W-M: Uh, so I mean for me to, now next week I’m doing lunch with [a leader from the inner city
church] and that too is an attempt to be...uh, how would I put that? Well, at least to be in each
other’s lives. I want to hear from him how he would like our [interns] to work there. I would like
to have him hear how we would like, you know, [their] church to be involved with us, so. ..

I: [Have they] been at the meetings when you’re talking with the [interns] and planning their
work?

W-M: No.
I: So they’re not there. So, it’s like you will offer them an [intern] or several...

W—M: Well no, it’s not quite»- There, it’s [inner city church leader] and myself and we have been
in conversation, because we have in the past - you know, we have tutors that joined their tutors
and we tutor kids from the[ir] neighborhood... And so they said, ‘Can we work together and make
use of your [interns]?’ And I told [him] at one point that we had this windfall (speaking of the
grant) and so we had these people and that they needed ministry and that one of the things that we
thought [their church] could be extremely helpful in was to provide inner-city experience that
they don’t get in the seminary. So now, uh, so what my - our committee, the [internship]
committee has asked is that I go and talk to [him] and say, ‘Now . . . what we’re going to have is
we have three arenas in which these [interns] will work. .. and we want them to have experience in
pastoral care, and worship, and outreach, and in congregational life . . .so we have these parallel
arenas so that they can get the kinds of experiences that they need and they can be used and be
really — not just, you know, where they’re not so much a burden as a real asset. . . So now what
[their church] has to do is to tell us. ..

This exchange reveals a sincere attempt on the part of whites to dialogue and be involved

in the lives of people of color but there is little recognition of how whites are still in

106

control of the resources (financial and human), of how whites are the ones making the
primary decisions and the assumption is that this arrangement will ‘serve’ the pe0ple of
color by giving them something that they cannot provide for themselves.

A respondent of color from the other church describes the experience of working
toward a partnership in very different ways. He expresses frustration that whites control
the resources and they are not equitably shared. He expresses concern that the
partnership needs to involve more than the exchange of money but also include the

joining together of members from both congregations to work tOgether on projects.

POC-M: But don’t call me your sister. . .don’t see me all the time. .. and you can’t slide me into
your budget. And you got all them rich folks out there. Come on, rrran. All them educators, all
those great people. I ain’t — my people ain’t hardly — you know, they pay their tithes, but when
they tithe it only adds up to about thirty thousand a year. Man, how come I always got to beg?

1: Yeah, it’s hard to have to beg all the time.

POC-M: No, no, no. This — no, but this is — I accept the ministry that God calls to me, because
God has been making our budget work, but if you love me and you know that your budget. . .and
you know that you can squeeze a little bit more out of your people, for ten thousand American
dollars - and that ain’t anything but peanuts; you spend that much up in stamps in a year. You
can’t give a love offering man, and say, ‘Let me stick them in the budget; let me confurn that to
the church that they are part of us.’

I: Mm-hmm. What happens when you say this to people at | Church]; the power structure
at | Church]? Do they hear it when you say this, or have you not ever said it?

POC-M: No, I’ve said it...

I: You have said it?

POC-M: I have said it.

I: And what’s their response?

POC-M: Uh, ‘no, we can’t do it.’

I: Why not? What do they - what’s the reason given?

POC-M: They didn’t give me a good reason. Because it, you know, the budget. And I know; I
made sure -— now the first year I can rmderstand, because the budget had already been passed. The
second year, you see what I’m saying, uh, uh, I caught it before the budget. Couldn’t do it. And

then come back here where the deacons said they’d just take an offering for you. Hmmm.

I: Now again, it still feels like crumbs off the table, it’s just that instead of it being part of the
system...

107

POC-M: [A different white church] is our mother - or used to be our mother church before we
became a [separate] church — give as ten thousand They’re committed to us.

I: Do they still do it?

POC-M: They still do it; they’re doing it. Now how long it’s going to last I don’t know, but my
point is they’ve been committed and they ain’t got no rich folks up there. I bet the average person
only gets about forty, forty thousand tops, the majority of them. But they believe that God

called. . .has ordained this relationship. And I don’t even go up there as much . .. But I’m sitting at
the same table with you.

I: Mm-hmm, mm—hmm. So that’s another example of hidden racism perhaps.

POC-M: You better believe it. You better — it’s power, white privilege. . ..

Okay. I just used that as a great example, because when we first come together about buying a
house and helping out and stuff like this here, that’s caring. Or mobilizing a team of some of your
peoples to really work here; serving the conununity, and stuff like this. That never happened.

I: Mm-hmm, mm—hmm. So do you have a sense that programs and structures within the
congregation. . ..within the partnerships between the churches. . .are controlled by white people
rather than controlled by people of color?

POC-M: Well, we don’t have a table anymore. . .see the reason I can say that is they control the
table. Here’s why I say that. That’s all [---] wants to do and he’s made it plain to me, and I’m
saying, ‘Wait a minute man, this partnership is going to be bigger than this, than antiracism.’
That’s the only thing that’s going to hold us together? Man, I’m not — look here, we’re down here
dealing with our own racism in our own church. Go find somebody else for your pet project; you
see what I’m saying. It’s got to be bigger than that. It’s got to be bigger than on Sunday nights;
changing pulpits. No, no, I want something tangible. Let’s buy a house together, let’s do
something together other than fight injustice just fi'om, fi'om. . .you know. So I got people down
here that I got to minister to too, and so I need help ministering, you know. Do you see what I’m

saying?
I: I think so, yeah.

POC-M: And here’s the deal,. . .My people suffer... So I’m up against something tremendously
more challenging than they are— to even be in the war of antiracism, when I got social issues, I
got a majority of people around here, man, they haven’t even got a place to stay yet... alcoholic
and stuff like that, you know what I’m saying. That concerns me; ministering to the peoples, you
know what I’m saying, but I also understand that I have an obligation within the CRC.

This dialogue reveals a number of things. Because of racialized social structures, this

nonwhite congregation is dependent on outside sources of fimding (primarily the charity

of external, predominantly white congregations) to be able to survive financially.

However the nonwhite congregation desires more than just money from the white

congregation but there is a lack of clarity about what their mutual interests are and a lack

of understanding about how to work jointly on projects of mutual concern. They dream

108

about working together in outreach and ministry in their neighborhood; they desire a
tangible project that they could work on jointly rather than being seen as a ‘pet project’ of
the white church. They want the partnership between them to include financial resources
but to go beyond merely an exchange of money.

When we explore institutional racism we find that there is differential access to
information based on race, in terms of knowing the system for taking action, in knowing
how particular organizational processes work in the functioning of the institution, and in

controlling the programs and resources within and between congregations.

Institutional racism as seen through differential accountability processes

We have recognized institutional racism in the formal and informal influence that
whites wield in many aspects of the institution, through leadership structures that
privilege whites over people of color, and through differential access to information and
control of resources. Now we will examine how institutional racism is seen in the ways
accountability is handled within the congregations. In-depth interviews with church
leaders reveal that different expectations and different standards exist for people of color
and for white people within these congregations. We can see three examples of this in
these congregations. First, different standards can lead to some people being set up to
succeed and some being set up to fail. People of color describe that the sharing of
economic resources within the congregations is not equitable which prevents them at
times from accomplishing what they set out to accomplish. Second, people of color
describe that more is expected of them in giving an account of their work on the

congregation’s behalf and they have to justify themselves more in committee meetings

109

and in other congregational settings. People of color describe that they are scrutinized
more than are whites. Third, when mistakes do happen, the mistakes made by people of
color are disproportionately remembered and held against them.

Being set up to succeed or fail In the first example, a person of color describes the
experience of being set up to fail through inadequate financial resources which also

affects the time, organization, and accomplishment of planned activities.

POC-M: I was just thinking about the fact that there’s a sense that. . .the non-white person, I have a
sense that we’re generally set up to fail, and the reason I say that is that our programs generally are
funded less and since the firnding is not quite there, we’re scrambling more, we have more loose
ends.

I: Mm-hmrn, have to beg more.

POC-M: Have to beg more and just have to be surviving rrrore, so if I have a well-funded program
here and I’m barely making it here. . .an example would be, I have forty kids to take to camp, but I
really didn’t have - you know, the money wasn’t allocated for that, so now I’ve got to scramble
and try and write a proposal or grant or something for camp. If I end up in a deficit after it’s all
said and done, I don’t manage things right. But we kind of knew, because we’ve done this for
years, that this group of kids is going to go to carrrp and that we should put money in the budget
for camp, but we don’t do it. But yet over here in this program that’s white run, we fund it. So the
lack of equity tends to be mismanagement. ‘These folks manage money great. Look it. They even
have a few dollars left over.’ Well, some of it is just - and I want to say it’s ignorance, but it’s. . .I
don’t know what it is. It seems like it’s ignorance. And that’s not always the case, okay. These are
examples of times when you feel like, ‘man, we could have just avoided that whole deal by simply

allocating more funds to that, because we’ve done this every year.’ So some of it is that— yeah, the
lack of funding, because really money is power and privilege.

Lack of adequate funding for priorities or programs organized and implemented by
people of color leaves them at a disadvantage and sometimes they are held personally
responsible for what is more likely a structural issue.

POC have to give more justification and are under more scrutiny People of color
describe that more is expected of them and they experience a different level of
accountability than do whites within the congregations. They are expected to give more
of an account of their actions, their proposals, and even their suggestions than are whites.
Some respondents feel they have to give more justification, argue and explain in detail

more, and put everything on paper in order to get what they want.

110

POC-M: So that is the same thing we’re dealing with here; checks and balances, because we’re
having more things to address there presently rather than long term, so I had to struggle with
getting food pantries open, getting clothes banks here, getting outreach here, and stuff like that.
All they wanted to do was to preach the word and evangelize, but there’s more to life. We wanted
the ministry - my vision was to minister to the holistic of a person. So that was a struggle in

the beginning. And then understanding his thought, his white thought. Uh, let me put it another
way. The way they were trained in these schools; like A-B-C-D-E, you know what I’m saying.
Everything had to be on paper, stuff of this nature.

I: In an ordered way, is that what you mean? The way the whites think it’s got to be boom, boom,
boom. [hands indicating one, two, three]

POC-M: Well, right, uh, keep it to the level. But life is not to the level. You see what I’m saying?
Uh, when I came in here, I said now look... I said, ‘now, tell me where this white cow is at, and I
won’t touch your white cow. What’s sacred here to you, because I know everybody’s got
something sacred, so show me the white cow and I won’t touch it.’ Because I knew their mindset,
and so I always had to confront and fight with them. When I left out of the council meeting, I left
there exhausted, but the white guy could get what he wanted without any long out discussion, but
I’ve got to tell how, when, where, and all this stuff. And he didn’t have to put anything on paper,
but I had to put something on paper.

I: So you’re saying that as a black man you had to justify things to a greater extent than white
people did.

POC-M: That’s right...
Some feel that they are under the scrutinizing gaze of whites who expect them to give a
detailed account of their decisions and actions. People of color have to spend more time

justifying themselves than do whites.

1: What’s it been like for you as a person of color to be in this church, which as you said is ninety
percent white? What’s the experience been like?

POC-M: It’s been, um, it’s been interesting, because, um -— it’s been, it’s been hard in some ways
because there are people who I feel like are like right on top of me, constantly looking at what I’m
doing in the youth ministry. Uh, some parents who I know weren’t like that with other ones.

I: Other youth leaders?

POC-M: Other youth leaders. And so it nukes me wonder, is it just because it’s my first year, is it
because all of a sudden there’s a new guy who’s [a person of color] who’s going to be dealing
with my children so I need to watch exactly what he does and what he says? That could be far off,
but it could also not be far off, so it just rmkes me wonder how things would be if I wasn’t..., if I
was white, if my name was John Vander something, Minister to Youth. Would there be such a,

a. . .would I have some of these parents who are white looking over my shoulder to see exactly
what I’m doing step-by-step? So, um, in that sense it’s been hard. It’s also been hard because, um,
as far as being in staff meetings or stuff like that, um, I don’t feel like I have the. . .enough of a
voice to make a difference. But that could be because I’m still new. I am the newest one, I’m
young. It may have nothing to do with race, it just may have to do with rrre being — feeling like I’m
still the new guy, and I’m just young. I mean, everybody else is a lot older than me, so I’m the
‘young gun’ and I’m the new guy, so. . .I haven’t been here that long. I mean, I’m only going on
my second year. Maybe in three or four years it will be different, so, you know, we’ll see.

111

This respondent expresses strong feelings of frustration at feeling scrutinized more than
white youth leaders have been but then ahnost discounts his concern by stating this may
have nothing to do with race. Such a statement is a common racial storyline often given
by those who struggle to acknowledge the power race has in shaping institutions as well
as life experiences. It is fascinating that any given respondent may make a strong
statement about race one nrinute and then contradict it in the next. As we will see in the
next chapter, many white people and some people of color seek alternate explanations for
particular racial situations claiming, ‘This has nothing to do with race.’

What is noteworthy is that people of color describe a dual reality they experience
which is a sharp contrast. On the one hand, they feel as though they are invisible within
the congregation (don’t have much of a voice) and on the other hand, they feel like they
are under ahnost a scrutinizing beam of a microscope having to justify their actions and
having to explain everything in more detail than do whites.

Mistakes remembered disproportionately Occasionally mistakes are made when
making financial decisions or organizing a program or allocating resources. Assumptions
about who is responsible and how to handle these mistakes reveal differential
accountability. Respondents of color describe that their mistakes are disproportionately
remembered and they are treated differently when financial mistakes happen. Here the
respondent asserts that there is, in effect, a double standard.

POC-M: Now, I must admit though that at [our church] some of those trusting relationships ended
up in chaos. We’ve had some mismanagement of stuff that people have been trusted with and
they’ve mismanaged, so that hasn’t helped any. You know, that doesn’t help then to have people
give trust, because...

I: Has that mismanagement happened with both white and non-white, or is it usually one or the
other and then that skews the way people think of it in the future?

112

POC-M: I think we’ve had mismanagement — in fact, yes, mismanagement has happened both
ways, however, the ones that we accent or the ones that we hold to light are the mismanagements
that have occurred with non-whites. I think the nrismanagements that occur with whites are kind
of part of the system. You know, we decide to buy new computers even though we just bought
new computers two years ago. That’s mismanagement of funds, but it’s systematic
mismanagement of funds, so the individual that proposed it...

I: So it’s not personal.

POC-M: No, it’s part of the system.
1: They’re not held personally liable.
R: No, because. ..

I: For bad decisions I mean

R: Yeah, but if a person decides to. . .I don’t know, secure a bus that we end up not using; ‘Ooh,
see? They can’t manage money.’ So there’s not equity in the way people perceive or judge the
outcomes.

This respondent is admitting that whites and nonwhites have made mistakes in the past
which have bad financial repercussions for the congregation but he feels that mistakes
made by nonwhites are highlighted and remembered as personal, individual mistakes
whereas mistakes made by whites are ‘part of the system’ and whites are not held
personally liable in the same way a nonwhite person is. There is inequity in the way these
mistakes are perceived and remembered. This is another example of differential

accountability processes.

Summary

This chapter demonstrates and makes more concrete some of the theoretical
assertions about institutional racism by examining how racial phenomena are structured
in the contemporary settings of three congregations. Specifically the data illustrate how
particular mechanisms and practices, some of which are overt and some of which are
hidden produce racial inequality within these congregations. This is seen in the articulate

descriptions the respondents give of their lived-experience of race and racism in these

113

congregations. The data also show how people of color have experienced differential
access to power based on race and how they perceive this to lead to a differential
distribution of resources within the congregation. The findings suggest that power given
to certain groups eventually leads to privileges and resources flowing to some but not
others.

In this chapter, we have considered differential access to power by examining
who has influence within the congregations and whose preferences count in the primary
functions of the congregation, including programming, worship, and outreach. By paying
attention to voices that have usually been silent, it is possible to develop eyes to see how
institutional racism is operative in these congregational settings. We have examined how
leadership is determined and who has authority to make decisions. We have examined
who has access to information and how that affects the control of resources. And finally
we have explored how accountability is handled within the structures of the
congregations.

By drawing upon the perspective of those who have been silenced in the past, we
are able to see how race-based privilege is revealed in who has more influence within the
functioning of these congregations. People of color describe how white ways of
organizing and planning for worship and music often take precedence over nonwhites
and white priorities in terms of programming and process often take precedence over
nonwhites. Whiteness is an assumed norm and this is seen in comments made by both
whites and people of color. This finding has theoretical validity in that it has been
identified in the literature on racialized societies (Frankenberg 1993; Bonilla-Silva 2003)

and it has been confirmed through multiple data collections via participant observation

114

and in-depth interviews. This has been also verified through member checking in follow-
up conversations with team leaders and interviewed team members.

People of color describe that they are marginalized and their voice is not heard.
They experience token inclusion or if they are willing to become active, the ones who do
are often over-used and over-worked. The difficulty of finding nonwhites willing to
assume leadership within the congregation can be caused either by whites’ unwillingness
to relinquish control and submit themselves to the authority of people of color. Or it can
be caused by the reluctance of people of color who are unwilling to step forward and
serve as leaders because they fear their contributions won’t be valued and they will waste
their time. These findings were validated through member checking with team leaders
and in several follow-up conversations with participants.

In the context of the congregations studied there are also indications of
differential access to information based on race and therefore differential control of
resources as well. In all three congregations respondents described that the budgeting,
allocation, expenditure, and management of resources reflect preferences being given to
whites. This can be caused in subtle ways by whites knowing more about the
organizational processes needed to get something accomplished and because nonwhites
have not had these systems explained to them and this leaves them at a significant
disadvantage. The findings in this study suggest that race privilege leads to white control
of plans, decisions, funding, and programs and there is a lack of accountability to people
of color.

Not only is there a lack of accountability to people of color by whites but we have

seen that there are different expectations and different standards of accountability for

115

people of color within these congregations. Nonwhites describe that more is expected of
them in giving an account of their work on the congregation’s behalf. This finding was
validated by member checking in all three congregations. People of color have to justify
themselves more in meetings and in other congregational settings and they are more
scrutinized than are whites. When mistakes do happen, the mistakes made by people of
color are disproportionately remembered and held against them whereas mistakes by
whites are treated as part of the system and rarely are whites held. personally liable.
These findings reveal how the structures of the congregations operate to favor whites
over nonwhites despite mixed race congregational composition and how this perpetuates
institutional racism.

A fascinating aspect of this study has been the gradual shift that occurred in the
inquiry during the process of the research. In the beginning it was assumed that
examining institutional racism would be fairly straightforward. However after several
months of data collection and in-depth conversation it became clear that a striking finding
was emerging—much of what was being explored appears to be hidden to white people.
Most whites cannot see how race privilege is played out in their lives and in their
congregations except in the most dramatic and obvious ways. It is invisible to them. For
most people of color in this study, they express disbelief that it is not obvious to the
whites who hold power and privilege in the functioning of the institution. This finding
was validated through peer review and is consistent with the literature on racialization.
As a result of this finding, we determined that the roots of institutional racism required
deeper exploration—in particular, an exploration into how and why racism is hidden and

how racism is internalized.

116

In the next chapter we examine internalized racism—how messages of racial
superiority or inferiority are absorbed and how this operates to support and reinforce
institutional racism to maintain the status quo. We will examine the subtle, often
unconscious assumptions people make about race and how these internalized messages—
the unconscious rules for making rules—uphold institutional racism. We will consider the
language and rhetorical positions whites and people of color assume as they describe
their experience of race in the congregational setting and what this reveals about

internalized racism as the foundation which keeps institutional racism intact.

117

Chapter 6- Lost Opportunities:
The Impact of Intemalized Racism

To be white in America is to not have to think about it.
from For Whites Only (1988)

Understanding Intemalized Racism

It was the innocence and sincerity of the question that captured my attention.
“Are you all saying that you don’t know that you are white?” The young black woman
leaned forward in her chair, looked around the room with a puzzled look on her face and
waited for a response. The people she looked at began squirming in their seats, coughing,
looking around at each other with an uncertainty about how to answer the question. First
a middle-aged white man responded, ‘Ah, well. We know we are white.’ as if to say, ‘Of
course, we are not blind. We an see each other.’ The next person to respond himmed
and hawed and couldn’t quite get a sentence out. The third person who attempted a
response turned the question back on the young black woman, ‘Why do you ask? Do you
know that you are black?’ The young black woman got wide-eyed and animated, ‘Oh,
yes! I know I’m black. I feel it everyday at school. I feel like I stand out and I go to a
mostly black high school.’ This conversation happened at one of the antiracism team
meetings between several churches and the topic of discussion for the evening was white
privilege. All but one in the room that evening were white, of European descent. The
one person of color in the room for this discussion was the youngest person present, the
only black person present and a female in a room of mostly middle-aged white men. The
fact that she spoke up and asked the question in the first place was striking because of the
courage required to even ask it in that setting. And the fact that those sitting there were

almost struck ‘dumb’ by the question was equally striking. This illustrates how for

118

some whites race functions almost unconsciously and it raises questions not just about
white privilege but even more fundamental is the question of how people have come to
understand what race means in this society—in these congregations. How do whites
understand what whiteness means and what impact does this have on the fimctioning of
their institutions? These questions are important because they reveal what people
believe unconsciously and have internalized regarding race and racism.

In Chapter 5 we explored how institutional racism operates within the
congregation by examining the structures of the congregation as revealed in some of the
specific methods, practices and social relations that produce and reproduce racial
inequality. We sought to expose how the dominant perspective i grrores and even
misrepresents the experience of nonwhite people in American society. Acknowledging
the breath and depth of institutional racism within these congregations, as defined by
people’s lived experience, has been a difficult and demanding process for the participants
in the antiracism initiative. Part of what makes this recognition difficult is that for most
Americans much of our understanding of race/ racialization and how it functions within
American society is unconscious and has been internalized in subtle ways (Jones 2000).
A person’s understanding of their position in society in terms of race, gender, and socio-
economic status is developed gradually over time and happens by absorbing the many
subtle cues a person receives as they live their lives day in and day out. Many cultural
messages are given about a person’s identity including their racial position in society
(and in the church) and these are often accepted without our even acknowledging it.

In this chapter we will explore how racism has been internalized in both whites

and people of color by examining the language respondents use and the rhetorical

119

positions they assume when describing their experience of race/racialization in their
congregations. The language used and the rhetorical positions a person assumes are
important because they reveal something about what the person believes, consciously and
unconsciously, about race and racism. Intemalized racism (either of superiority or of
inferiority) is the result of multiple intersecting factors including cultural messages about
race received through the family, the school, the media and other institutions (Bamdt
1991). Becoming aware of and conscious of the'tacit assumptions we hold is a necessary
first step in the dismantling of racism. Without facing internalized racism, institutional
racism cannot be confronted. However the findings of this study reveal not only the
difficulty of gaining this consciousness but the persistent cultural forces that are subtly at
work to maintain the status quo.

Scholars have documented that racism needs to be understood as different levels
or as different manifestations. As described in Chapter 2, there is a growing literature on
racism and racialization which acknowledges the interplay between these different levels
of racism-«institutional, individual (or personally-mediated), and internalized.
Institutional racism is created, supported, and perpetuated by internalized racism, which
has been acquired in subtle, insidious, and unconscious ways (Jones 2000; Bamdt 1991).

The literature on internalized racism describes it as one result of continued racial
segregation where whites and people of color live in relative isolation from one another.
“The isolation of people of color can lead to internalized racism, whereby people
internalize their lack of Opportunities as self-blame” (Chavez 2002:84). In other words
racism is not just an enemy outside which oppresses but it can also be an enemy within

which gives us a false understanding of who we are. This happens when people of color

120

believe and accept many of the negative stereotypes prevalent in cultural messages about
their racial identity (Bonilla-Silva 2003).

Intemalized racism is defined as acceptance by members of the stigmatized races

of negative message about their own abilities and intrinsic worth. It is

characterized by their not believing in others who look like them, and not
believing in themselves. It involves accepting limitations to one’s own full
humanity, including one’s spectrum of dreams, one’s right to self-determination,
and one’s range of allowable self-expression. It manifests as an embracing of

‘whiteness’ (. . .stratification by skin tone within communities of color, and ‘the

white man’s ice is colder’ syndrome); self-devaluation (racial slurs as nicknames,

rejection of ancestral culture. . .); and resignation, helplessness, and hopelessness

(dropping out of school, failing to vote, and engaging in risky health practices)

(Jones 2000:1213). '

The literature on internalized racism does distinguish between that which has
been internalized by people of color as racist oppression and that which has been
internalized by whites as racist superiority. Whites hear repeated cultural messages about
their presumed superiority (McIntosh 1998; Krieger 1999). This has deep and profound
influences on how whites view themselves and on their assumptions about the abilities of
people of color. It also has deep and profound influences on how people of color view
themselves and on their assumptions about whites.

Intemalized racist superiority can be defined as a complex socialization process
that teaches white people to believe and accept superior societal definitions of self and to
live out superior societal roles. When combined with the internalized racist oppression
experienced by people of color, internalized racism supports and reinforces a kind of
dance that helps maintain the race construct (Dias, Drew and Gardiner 2003). The
antiracism training in which the congregations participated argues that internalized

racism is an issue for all people, not just people of color.

Racial identity in the United States is not shaped in a neutral environment. The
identities of people of color form in response to racial oppression and the

121

identities of whites form in response to racial superiority. These two identity
dynamics manifest in a complex range of attitudes and behaviors that support and
perpetuate the racist paradigm in this country. In order to work together to
dismantle. . .racism, people of color and whites must understand how these
identity dynamics operate in specific institutional settings, and devise strategies to
overcome the barriers and oppression that are created by them (Dias, Drew and
Gardiner 2003: 1).
Two excerpts from the interviews demonstrate how these subtle, internalized messages
about superiority and inferiority are evident in the congregations. The first is a black man
speaking about his church and how it is viewed by those outside his congregation as not
being good enough to be in the denomination. Notice that he seems to accept certain
unconscious messages about the presumed inferiority of people of color when he says
‘they ain’t too smart’ but then contradicts himself by saying, ‘we’re smart just like you

are but we’ve got a stigma’ on us because of race.

POC-M: When you think of the CRC, and me being - I mean, don’t take offense or nothing, but
me being a black man in the CRC, you do feel the difference; different pressures and kind of like,
‘you ain’t good enough to be CRC.’ I mean, this — I do feel this. Or like, you know, you know...
okay, I know what | Church] is, and those people down there, you know, they ain’t too
smart,’ or whatever. Not ‘too snrart,’ I don’t want to say that, but, ‘they have hard times,’ and
everybody here hasn’t had hard times. I mean, we have — I mean, some of our black people, I
mean, we’re smart, we’re smart just like you are. (Someone else agrees and says, That’s right”)
But we’ve got this stigma on this church, like, ‘oh yeah, you know, that church down there is not
safe,’ and you know, I feel that in the CRC, because when I go visit other churches - (whispering)
‘oh yeah, he’s from | Church], oh yeah,’ you know.

This reveals something of the internal struggle the respondent experiences because
certain messages about inferiority have been absorbed yet he’s trying to counter those
messages even in his own mind.

In the second example a person of color describes his experience of having to
prove himself when working as a deacon in the church and a white male responds at first
by trying to claim this may have nothing to do with race. But notice the subtle comment
in which he assumes the person of color may not have the ‘background’ to handle the job.

This is an example of unconscious presumed superiority.

122

I: [--], it looked like you were trying to say something.

POC-M: [laughs] I’m a deacon right now, and I remember when I was chair it did seem like you
had to really make sure that you crossed your t’s and dot your i’s when it came to having reports
and stuff, or if you did, if you did drop the ball, it’s like, ‘whooooa! You’re doing such and
such...! ’ You know, it was a big. . .it was a big, big thing. Now was it because of race? I don’t
know, but it does seem that way. You have to really...

POC-F: Deal with your p’s and q’s ??

POC-M: You’ve got to really - you’ve got to really be on it, because, man...

POC-F: [Unclear name] says you have to be on your p’s and q’s.

POC-M: Yeah, yeah, because man, you drop the ball and it’s. . .and you hear about it forever.
[laughs] You hear about it.

W-F: I know there were rumors that...

I: So it’s not just like when it first happens; you hear about it weeks and months later?
POC-M: Oh yeah. You just hear about, ‘well you know, such and such... ’ Yeah.

W-M: Well, would that be true if it was a white guy that they were trying to shape up? Or
whoever’s doing it; I don’t know, I guess. Would they do it the same way if he didn’t have the
background, or do you think it’s a little different?

POC-M: Background?

W-M: Yeah, I mean, you know, math or accounting, or whatever that goes into deaconship, or
writing reports.

POC-M: I don’t know. I don’t have background in accounting or whatever. [laughs]

W-M: No, but are we getting away from this? I mean. ..

POC-M: Oh yeah; you’re saying, if it was a white gentleman that had a good background do you
think he would have the same. . .the same treatment? [unclear because he’s interrupted by a white
man]

W-M: Well, without a background, the guy that doesn’t have the education, doesn’t know
anything about being a deacon or bookkeeping, and happens to be white. Wouldn’t whoever be
getting after him because of the same thing, or do you think they might pick more on you because
they assume you don’t have it?

POC-F : Anyway. ..

W-M: And it’s so hard to distinguish between race and personality, too.
Notice also that the person of color attempts to ask a clarifying question wondering if the
same treatment would happen to a ‘white gentleman’ and before he can finish asking the

question, he is interrupted by a white male who reveals his own assumption that a person

123

of color may not have the ‘background’ to work effectively as a deacon in the church.
But rather than staying focused on the issue being considered (the effect of race on how a
person is treated when serving as a deacon), the white man then goes on trying to find an
alternate explanation by claiming it’s hard to distinguish between race and personality.
As we will see later this is a common rhetorical move whites use when trying to discount
the impact of a racialized society.

The assumption of white superiority has been subtly acquired in pe0ple of all
colors and ethnic backgrounds in the United States through socialization and the
internalization of unconscious yet redundant messages that reinforce a racial hierarchy
(McIntosh 1998; Krieger 1999). This internalized racism is persistent and pervasive
partly because it is unconscious and there is evidence that reveals this internalization
often ‘trumps’ or dominates beliefs, behaviors or perspectives that seem to contradict it.
We absorb cultural messages that contradict what we say we believe and this happens in

subtle and unconscious ways.

Differing Standpoints: Examining Racial Rhetoric and How It Reflects Intemalized
Racism

In this section we will explore the empirical findings on internalized racism by
examining how the language used and the rhetorical positions assumed reflect
internalized racial superiority or internalized racial oppression. The words people chose
to use in describing a particular situation or setting can reveal a great deal about how they
understand or interpret their life experience, what they have internalized about what is
true. Despite the fact that the participants in this study were intensively learning and

thinking about institutional racism throughout the course of this research, their responses

124

to the interview questions about race fluctuated between directness and confidence to
contradictions, inconsistencies, and confusion. This is part of the normal flow of
conversation and is not uncommon when people are asked to share their ideas, opinions
and experiences. Race scholars have documented that when race and/or racism is being
discussed people often use “an interpretive repertoire consisting of . . .common

frames,. . .racetalk, and storylines” (Bonilla-Silva 2001 :66). In other words, there are
common phrases, shorthand expressions and even simplistic explanations given in
response to questions about race.

Paying attention to the language and the particular rhetorical responses people
give when discussing race is critically important because insights can be gained about
what their understanding of reality is. When were respondents articulate and when were
they ambivalent? When did respondents speak with clarity and forthrightrress and when
did they respond with hesitancy and reluctance? When do they say one thing and then
contradict it moments later? And how do these rhetorical positions reveal what people
have internalized about the meaning of race in American life and in particular, the
institutional church? An interesting challenge during analysis was trying to understand
and interpret the meaning behind the language used among people with varying racial
positions in the congregations. As we will see, awareness of how race power and
privilege operates within the congregations is strikingly different among whites and

people of color and reveals many contradictions.

Presumed racial superiority as internalized by whites The empirical results suggest that
internalized racial superiority of whites is revealed in a lack of awareness about race and

about the power it holds in their lives. Some whites assume that because they have lived

125

in a predominantly white world, they have had no opportunity to be a racist so they

assume no responsibility for the effects of the racialized society.

W-M: I grew up in a predominantly white community and I went to Christian schools my whole
life. Most of - well all the schools really, the majority was white people, at the elementary, high
school, and college level, you know, the majority of the students were white. Um. . .you know, I
remember as a child — maybe there wasn’t so many black people, but there were other people of
color such as people from India and Pakistan and stuff like that, and I remember some of my
friends making jokes about people of color and I probably unknowingly participated in some of
those as well, some just certain jokes. Then I guess, um. . .when I’m not surrounded by a lot of
people of color I just kind of didn’t really know too much about their culture and didn’t really
have too much of an opportunity to be a moist if I’m not even around people of color, but I’ve
always, you know - when you’re a little kid you’re immature, right, and so I probably put in those
jokes, but as I grew older, say high school level and then eventually college, just out of a Biblical
message to love everybody and to work. . .you know, I’ve been able to have fiiends outside of my
own race, because as I got older I was exposed to more people, I Was surrounded by more people,
so I had the opportunity to be fiiends with more of those people. And my parents were never
racist, and, you know, they always raised me to love everybody equally, and uh, now I’m actually
learning about racism and how it hurts and what it’s all about. You know, I never really thought of
it before, so. . .

Here the respondent reveals a dominant perspective among whites---that racism is
primarily about overt individual attitudes and actions that hurt people of color. Little
understanding is offered of how structural racism operates to oppress people of color. It is
noteworthy that this respondent answered as he did—viewing racism primarily as
individual attitudes and actions. By the time this interview occurred the respondent had
been through twelve full days of antiracism training over many months which focused on
a structural analysis of racism and yet his response reveals how much he has internalized
a view of racism as individualistic in nature. The structural analysis of racism offered by
the training has been overshadowed by a perhaps unconscious yet dominant message that
defines racism as individual actions and attitudes.

Additionally this is by no means the only white respondent who spoke about how
his parents were not racist and how he was raised not to be a racist. Particularly among
people who had been through the antiracism training comments were often made to

defend themselves as not being like other whites. The training describes such a posture

126

as a “looking-good strategy” that whites call upon to distance themselves from the
dominant white culture and not view themselves as part of the oppressor.

Another common occurrence among whites is that race is not something that is
given much thought or when it does come up it is peripheral and appears to be an
afterthought. To demonstrate how whites see race as a peripheral reality, specifically in
their congregations, we will turn to several group interviews in which the respondents are
addressing the question, “How does a person’s race affect their involvement in this
church?” In the first example, the people of color in a multiracial congregation have been
describing their experience and then a white person interj ects a comment and the

following conversation ensues

W-F: Can you ask that first question again and I’ll answer, because none of the whites have
answered that question, so I want you to get the other side. . .That first question you asked about
race and how it...

I: How does a person’s race affect their involvement in this church?

W-F: As a white woman, I don’t ever think of race as being an issue with my involvement at
[this church]. I don’t ever think I’m chosen because I’m white, I don’t ever think of it even once,
like, oh, somebody wants a white person on this committee, or... I just don’t think of race in that
perspective. I just don’t. You know, there’s your stark contrast.

POC-M: Where she doesn’t ever think of race, I think of it all the time.

W-F: Right, that’s why I wanted to say it.

There is a striking contrast—that whites can be involved in the congregation without
having to give much thought to how their race affects this involvement. Whites have
internalized a sense that either their race does not matter OR that they do not even have a
racial identity. We will discuss the invisibility of whiteness later in this chapter. But for
now the point to note is that it takes a fair amount of work on the part of whites to even

recognize that being white gives them certain advantages.

127

Usually for most whites to recognize race (since it such a peripheral part of their
consciousness) it comes up in relationship to some designated ‘Other.’ In another group
interview with respondents who are part of a predominantly white church the discussion
begins with comments about visitors saying they feel intimidated when first attending this
church and then the conversation shifts to a consideration of whether this is related to

racism.

1: Have others of you heard from people or experienced this sense of being intimidated in this
congregation? You’ve heard other people say it?

W-F: Yes.

W-M: All the time.

W-F: I ’d say it’s a recurrent theme. [laughter]

I: How’s that - and how does that intersect with racism? Is there a way that it intersects?

POC-F: Well it could intersect with race if you think in educational levels. Urn, for us to bring in
people fi’om [the projects] would be very difficult because education levels for the most part is
much lower than ninety-five percent of the people here, and how are they going to find that five
percent of us that don’t maybe have that. And then even then it’s a step above them, two steps
above them How do you - you know, we can maybe bring them in the door, but how are we
going to get them to the point to say, ‘I’m okay.’

W-M: And it’s a standard of excellence, it’s our standard, it’s a white standard of excellence, so
that you can go to a black church and think, ‘Boy, their music is really excellent,’ but it’s excellent
in a different way than it’s excellent at [this church], and so I would guess that a person of color
who comes here from a different understanding of what is excellent feels like they don’t fit in,
because their standard is different, the style is different But we impose our style of excellence on
everyone. ‘You’ve got to do it our way.’

W-M: Um, I was just thinking that for a church that conceives of itself as being liberal and on the
right side of the issue with regard to race and so on, there’s not a whole lot of overt attention to
making sure that the subject even comes up. I mean recently we’ve had this, this committee, but
for a lot -a lot of years some of us, um, there have been some people who really wanted to have
ministry to people of color, wanted to be a presence in the inner—city, but not a whole lot ever
came of that, and I think maybe what [D--] was saying is a barrier on that. There’s a very definite
commitment to a certain style and a standard of excellence and it’s a very intellectual church, but I
think when you ask the question, ‘How does race figure in here?’ By and large it hasn’t, it seems
to me.

There are a number of assumptions operating here. First is an acknowledgment that race
issues have not been a driving force in their institution; race has been a peripheral issue

for most of them. Even further they perceive race as being synonymous with color.

128

Whiteness is often not perceived as being a race (albeit a socially-constructed category).
In the above example note the assumption that race means people of color; there is little
recognition of whiteness as a racial position that has power in society. Whiteness is the
assumed norm and ‘Others’ who are nonwhite are welcome to join but they must adjust
themselves to fit in. The white norm is never challenged. These assumptions about what
constitutes race have been tacitly accepted and internalized by the vast majority of people
participating in this research.

Scholars have described how race privilege functions in American society to offer
preferential treatment and unfair advantage to one segment of the population at the
expense of other segments of the population (Blauner 1972; Emerson and Smith 2000;
Bonilla-Silva 2003). “The experience of the dominant group often serves as the point of
reference, the “norm,” and is compared with that of people who are disadvantaged along
a continuum of oppression and powerlessness” (Chavez et. al. 2002: 90). What is striking
is that whiteness as a norm eventually becomes invisible to those who have the racial
advantage.

Whiteness refers to a set of locations that are historically, socially, politically,

and culturally produced and, moreover, are intrinsically linked to unfolding

relations of domination. . .Among the effects on white people both of race
privilege and of the dominance of whiteness are their seeming normativity, their
structured invisibility (F rankenberg l993:6).
This masks an inability among many whites to name race as having any power in our
society or to even recognize the effects of racial differences. There are two important and
inter-related ideas here. Whites have a difficult time seeing and recognizing their power

and privilege. And because of the subtlety of white privilege, whiteness as a race is

invisible to those who are white. Whites often fail to recognize the exclusion of people

129

of color or they miss the subtle aspects of racism until they are told by someone who is

nonwhite. In this study often white respondents assume race means nonwhite.

I: How would you say a person’s race affects their involvement in this church?

W-F: I don’t think I can answer that yet. I think that I’m beginning to understand that it impacts
their involvement significantly in ways that I’m still discovering and learning. But I guess I would
say it impacts--- race impacts--- 100%.

I: Can you think of an example? Or exarrrples of how that is true?

W-F: . . .Unrnr, I have heard people tell me, people of color, tell me that they are hidden in the
congregation and they feel like they are not sought after for a voice. That, it’s assumed that, that
people of color will just come along with any decision that is made and usually made by people
who are white. So I would say that that is a discrimination. And ahh, I actually ahh I--I mean I
think what I’m finding out is that there is a whole lot of, of discrimination but it’s subtle. It’s not
necessarily a verbal, obvious kind of discrimination. But I think that what I’m picturing
happening is that it’s more of a discounting, ignoring, avoiding, not thinking.

The first few sentences in this response reveal a contradiction. This respondent first
claims ignorance abouthow race affects involvement in the church and then in the next
sentence says it impacts 100%. But notice that the assumption being made is that race is
synonymous with persons of color. This respondent appears to have no recognition that
whiteness is also a race that has implications for her involvement in this institution. She
refers to ‘their’ involvement and to ‘they’ feel with no recognition that her race affects
her involvement in the church as well. This reveals a great deal about what she has
internalized unconsciously about race. “As many race scholars note, not having to know
the details or extent of racialization is an advantage afforded to most white Americans”
(Emerson and Smith 2000: 88).

The findings of this study provide evidence of what the literature describes as
structured invisibility—whites cannot explain what being white means nor see their own
race power and privilege (Frankenberg 1993). And this structured invisibility reveals
some of what has been internalized by whites which reflects a subtle but very real sense

of superiority.

130

Another way this can be seen is in white responses that discount or deny the
significance of race or discredit the experience of people of color when they describe
their experience in the church. In other words, white respondents used argumentative
strategies to deny the significance of race and/or racial discrimination. Most of the
whites who were part of this study would admit verbally that discrimination still happens
and that racism still exists in our society but when we examine the way they respond to
questions about how racism fimctions within their congregations, very often they assume
a position of denial. Comments such as ‘I don’t think what we’re talking about has
anything to do with race’ or ‘Blacks are too sensitive about race’ were not uncommon.
There are numerous examples of whites seeking alternate explanations to race or trying to

explain away the role race plays in particular situations.

W-M: I mean I think what we [whites] need is help in identifying our blind spots and the only
way that can be done is by listening to each other and to listen to people of color. Um. . .and on the
other hand, you know, I want to be. . .I want us to have the freedom to say, ‘but I don’t think that’s
a —you know, that’s not a race issue.’

Notice in this example the respondent’s acknowledgement of needing help to identify
blind spots but very quickly claiming that whites need to have the freedom to say, ‘But
that’s not a race issue.’ So there is almost a double message being given here. Whites
might say that discrimination and racism still exist but they want to be able to decide
when a particular issue is related to race and when it isn’t.

In the following example several people of color are describing how they pick up
subtle cues from white people that reveal disdain and then they emphatically reinforce
each other’s comments about how a person of color can feel and sense when a white
person is putting on a front of being kind but not really caring for them. Notice the white

peoples’ responses late in this dialogue.

131

POC-M(1): You know, we as black people - we as a black people, we’ve just seen it and like
heard so much about those ‘isms, and just like, it’s been like, [static noise] like, like, it’s been like,
it’s just been punrped into us, you know, like, you know, ‘look out for this.’ It’s in us. We just
know. You know, and I’m not saying that we’re like dogs, or whatever, but I’m just — I say that,
you know, we just tell. You can just. . .

POC-F (1): You can tell, though.

POC-M (1): And sometimes I feel so bad, because sometimes we as black people, we can pick it
up, whereas you, you won’t sense anything. (speaking very animatedly) You think, ‘Awww, no!’
It’s like, ‘Man, it’s there.’ And it’s like, ‘Aw, you’re just being too sensitive.’ And it’s like, ‘Man,
it’s - you can...’

POC-F (l): I had a person tell me...

POC-M (2): It’s there! You can see it. I mean, for us, you can...

POC-F (1): You can feel it! You can see it!

POC-M (1): You can feel it. You can sense it.

POC-F (1): All of it.

POC-M (1): It’s just, when you’ve been around it so long...

POC-F (1): You can look at somebody’s eyes and they can say, ‘oh, okay, I got to do this, but I
don’t to want to do this.’

POC-M (1): But you don’t want, and you just know that this person don’t like you. You just know
it! But. . .

POC-F (1): But I have...

W-M (l): I would ask, why did he lie to you? [[this question seems to come out of the blue]]
1: —Sorry. .. what did you say?

W-M (1): Why did he lie to you? You know what I mean? You’ve got to ask yourself that.
POC-M (1): Oh, I know why.

POC-F (1): They don’t mean — really, they don’t. They tolerate you. They don’t like you; they
tolerate you, because they feel they have to. They don’t like you. It’s a toleration.

POC-M(l): Yeah, but you know, it’s a difference between some people like me —When you’ve
been around it so long, you just know. It’s like, it’s white people. You know when a black person
don’t like you. You know, I don’t want to just - I don’t want to be up here just talking like it’s all
about me.

W-M (2): Well, I also know when a white person doesn’t like me too. I mean, that really doesn’t
have much to do with race, I don’t think

In this exchange people of color are describing their experience in the church of feeling

tolerated but not genuinely liked or appreciated. The first response a white person gives

132

is to question the veracity of what the people of color have just shared by saying you
have to ask yourself why a white person would lie to you; in other words, people of color
have to ask themselves why a white person would say one thing but really mean another.
Later another white person responds by saying that he also knows when a white person
doesn’t like him and that this really doesn’t have much to do with race. The point here is
not to decide whose experience is more valid. The point is recognizing how quickly
whites seek to find alternate explanations to race in particular settings and how
uncomfortable they appear to be accepting what people of colOr share about their
experiences. Perhaps this is because it is difficult for whites to admit they have been the
beneficiaries of a system that provides advantages for them while simultaneously
providing exclusion and disadvantage for people of color. The literature on white
privilege describes that facing internalized feelings of guilt and shame (despite the fact
that this may not be the result of individual racism but is the result of systemic racism) is
difficult and painful for many whites to do (Helfand and Lippin 2002). Trying to find
other ways to explain away these difficult feelings is a common response.

Sometimes white respondents answer from a position of supposed unawareness
and claim ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I’m not sure.’ Whether these responses reflect true na'r‘ve
unawareness or instead are more a reflection of wanting to ignore the racial reality in the
congregation, either way not nanring the power race has in shaping American culture
serves to keep the status quo in place.

I: Given all the different kinds of experiences you’ve had and how you’re thinking about it and

studying about it, what do you think being white means to you? How would you describe what it
means to you now?

W-M: Um, I don’t know what being white means. It means this particular color I was given is one

of the many colors in the rainbow and God decided that I would be white and what that means to
me is, this is who I was chosen to be. I have no choice in my color, but I want to learn more about

133

everybody else’s culture as well, you know, not just my own. It means I’m just another person and
that doesn’t mean I’m better or worse than anyone else.

This response reveals a shallow understanding of what race power and privilege—or
whiteness—means in the context of the congregation. What is not entirely certain is
whether this response is one of genuine unawareness (‘I don’t know what being white
means’) or if this is more a rhetorical maneuver for self-protection. This respondent
seems to have internalized the message that white is superior though he is trying to claim
that it isn’t. He appears to be uncomfortable naming whiteness as a position of advantage
and this will prevent him from being able to use his racial position to confront the
racialized social system and work to dismantle it. Being able to recognize race privilege
and to name it are necessary first steps in being able to confront racism.

Another respondent was asked about the structures of the congregation and
whether they give power and privilege or limit power and privilege to members of the
congregation. The respondent hesitated to answer or be specific and claimed she didn’t

want to speak for the team.

I: Well, I have a couple of questions about institutional racism I’d like to sort of explore. How do
the structures of this congregation, decision making structures, leadership development,
corrrrnunity outreach, any program, Mower and privilege or limit power and privilege to
peOple of color from the congregation? How does it give power and privilege and how does it
limit power and privilege to particular people?

W-F: I’m still working on this. Can I answer this later? (laughs) Ha Ha But I mean, I think
that’s what, what we are going to start being real specific about as a team. Uhh, I have some
ideas, but I really don’t, ya know, I don’t wanna speak for the team.

 

This response could be interpreted in several ways. It could be interpreted as intentional
avoidance of an important issue related to racism in congregations. It could be an
example of the invisibility to whites of their race privilege and their inability to honestly
assess the difference race plays in the functioning of the congregation. Either way these

findings suggest that the current situation within this congregation will remain unchanged

134

if people are unable to recognize and/or name specific examples of institutional racism.
This inability to name racism for what it is can also be seen in the language (or
lack thereof) respondents use when asked about their experience in the congregations. A
common occurrence exhibited among white respondents in this research has been
identified by others scholars as rhetorical incoherence.
“Rhetorical incoherence (e. g. grammatical mistakes, lengthy pauses, or repetition)
is part of all natural speech. Nevertheless, the level of incoherence increases
noticeably when people discuss sensitive subjects. Because the new racial climate
in America forbids the open expression of racially based feelings, views, and
positions, when whites discuss issues that make them uncomfortable, they become
almost incomprehensible” (Bonilla-Silva 2003:68).
This occurs when a person seems unable to answer the question asked, stumbles in
conversation, becomes inarticulate and ahnost unintelligible. The following example
occurred in a group interview with a racially mixed church in response to a question

about overt racism.

I: Have any of you ever heard of examples of overt prejudice that anyone has experienced, that
you know of, within this church, this congregation?

W-F: I have one, just recently actually, and I don’t know if it was overreaction. I mean, I know the
person that was being accused, and I’m not sure if it was an overreaction. I mean, I know that the
person is - has done things in the past, but... I mean, I don’t know if this person is — you know,
because if two people are talking and they look at you, you automatically assume that they’re
talking about you, that’s just human nature, so I don’t know if it was something like that and it
was an assumption that they were being discriminated against, but I haven’t seen anything with
my own eyes, so...

In this instance, the respondent started to answer the question asked but got lost trying to
explain and defend her explanation perhaps because the topic raised feelings of anxiety
and discomfort. The listener is left in a state of confusion wondering what the respondent
was trying to say. The respondent seems to have internalized that the topic of racism is a
hot topic and one in which you must be careful what you say. Though she never says

these direct words her lack of coherent conversation reflects a certain level of discomfort

135

in talking about this topic. The dominant cultural message in American society regarding
race is that racist ideas or opinions are sharnefirl and therefore, whites reveal discomfort
in discussing race for fear of being accused of sounding racist.

Less dramatic than rhetorical incoherence is the verbal hesitancy (um, aaah,
well. . ..) that white respondents also exhibit when discussing race or the power race has
to shape institutions. These stumbling responses often demonstrate an insecurity to give

an opinion or sometimes to even share obvious information.
I: How important do you feel this antiracism initiative is to the life of the congregation?

W-F: Very inrportant. I think that we are umm developing in a «in a» a new way and ahh and in
an important new way.

1: Developing it?

W-F: developing in

I: in --OK

W-F: Developing in a new and important way.

I: Could you descrrbe that a little more?

W-F: ahh, I think what I, what I have come to, to believe is that as a Christian, there has been a
wrong interpretation here in my own life as to what a way to view the world as far as racism or
antiracism. So I. . . I think that our congregation suffers from that also. And so I think that «that
what I understand about our analysis is that as a Christian, we are looking at racism, we are
incorporating racism into our Christianity and that is wrong. And so there’s been an awareness
that, er there’s been like a spotlight beamed into that, and there’s probably other areas of our

Christian walk that are just as wrong, but attention has been brought to that. So I feel, now that I
understand that, then we must ...change it.

This response reveals the respondent’s hesitancy to recognize or at least name how race
has power to shape the congregation. It is more what she doesn’t say here rather than
what she does say. Acknowledgement is made that racism has been incorporated into
Christianity but its impact has been discounted when it’s compared to other areas that are
‘just as wrong.’ Further, at times white respondents seem to want to avoid certain topics

of discussion. In response to a question about hidden racism, this respondent refuses to

136

talk about it claiming there are some things that she suspects are hidden but she doesn’t

want to say them.

I: Have you been able to identify instances of hidden racism within the church?

W-F: (long pause to answer) I umm, suspect some things. I, I, I don’t even want to umm, I don’t
even want to say them right now, but I, I suspect there’s plenty that’s hidden.

This is another example of not naming the impact of racism and therefore, maintaining
the status quo. Hidden racism will continue in this setting because it remains unnamed
and unidentified and thus, it is really unacknowledged.

Examining the rhetorical responses and the positions assumed by whites in this
study reveals what has been internalized unconsciously and is reflected as presumed
superiority. When whites fail to recognize, fail to acknowledge or fail to name the role
race plays within the functioning of the congregation, this serves to support and reinforce
institutional racism in subtle ways. Because this failure to recognize and name is the
result of internalized messages of presumed white superiority, it raises questions about
how to bring to consciousness that which has been tacitly assumed and unchallenged in
the past. We will explore that in the next chapter. But first we will examine how people
of color have internalized racial inferiority and oppression and how that leads to the

perpetuation of institutional racism in these congregations.

Presumed racial inferiority and oppression as internalized by POC People of color,
in sharp contrast to whites, have little difficulty in seeing and acknowledging how race
privilege exists within the congregations and leaves them in positions of structured

disadvantage. People of color in this study face racial inequities day in and day out and

rarely do they describe their experiences with ambivalence or hesitancy or rhetorical

137

incoherence. Usually they speak directly and with forthrightrress. And it is not
uncommon for people of color in this study to express anger and deep frustration when
describing how our racialized social systems affect them even in their congregations. In
the following example, two men of color are discussing how their whole lives are totally
affected by racism which creates a deep internal struggle that is felt acutely especially
after antiracism meetings. The people of color openly express how difficult it is to live
with such a strong sense of oppression especially when the whites listen to the struggle

but then return home to their own luxury and nothing changes.

POC-M : And not — we need to go farther than that, because your congregation looks just like your
community: poor, helpless, and hungry, and made up of black and white, and our children go to
the same school and stuff of this nature. It’s painful when we look at these other all. . .predonrinant
powerful churches. We are reminded where we come from, that we are in the fight, or when we go
to these secluded places where, uh, uh... You know, for example, like. . .it’s painful for us because
we have no avenue to send our children forward. We dream dreams for our children to go forward
and be educated and be part of God’s king u-represent God’s kingdom too, and so it’s painful for
us to go there and present our stories, you know what I’m saying, and yet there’s nothing done. It
seems redundant just going through something when we’ve got to go back to this fishbowl and
deal with needs and try to encourage people’s lives with the little resources that we have, you
know, and so you see where - and [E---] made a great statement, which is true; you may come
down here, but when you’re going back to your nice area, you see what I’m saying, we talk about
racism coming back to the same — you see what I’m saying, and so we are totally affected. For
me. . .even with those antiracism teams I’m truly - in fact, I’ll you the truth, I’m pissed off when I
leave those meetings too, excuse me, if I can use that phrase.

[Another POC-M]: You’re not by yourself. You’re not by yourself. We went through the last
caucus and [E---] did a wonderful job of helping us to.. .uh, basically analyze the analysis, and at
the end of the meeting 1 was angry, you know, I was angry. And .. .we were supposed to relate
personal issues to the analysis, and after having related several issues to the analysis, when we
carrre back to the table - the people of color came back to the table with the white people, I still
had that gut. . .that hurt, you know, in my gut, because — and I said, you know, I sit back and I
think about that, and just like [P—-] was saying, we come right back into the midst of racism or
the society or, you know, the picket line where ‘this is where we want to live and you can’t live
outside of this,’ and white people go back to their luxury, so it’s like, okay, if the shoe’s on the
other - if you reverse the roles, then they would understand some of our pain. We keep telling the
story, keep telling the story, and you know, you hear a story for a period of time, you start to
embrace it a small amount, but the magnitude of it. .. You know, how do you get the magnitude of
this oppression to people who are not oppressed? How do you help them to experience the
oppression if they’re not being oppressed? So you tell the story, you tell the story, and you give a
small glimpse of it, but [they] don’t understand the magnitude of it.

This example raises a very important and powerful question—how to get the magnitude

of this oppression to people who are not oppressed? It is not enough for people of color

138

to merely describe the oppression they live under because those who have never
experienced it cannot really understand, despite good intentions and/or empathy being
awakened. Because of the racialized structure of American society, whites can choose to
be involved in antiracism work and they can walk away from the work. They can choose
when and when not to be involved. People of color do not have the same choices. This
example gives us some glimpse of how people of color experience race as a central
reality of their lives as the effects of being people of color in American society never
leave them.

In the last section we saw how whites tend to not think about race when it comes
to their involvement in the church. This contrasts sharply with what we hear from people
of color in these congregations who describe how race affects every part of their
involvement in their congregation and is a significant part of their daily experience
including in the church. People of color are told by whites that they bring up race too
much. Recall the findings in Chapter 5—in one of the group interviews with a racially-
mixed group, the people of color speak articulately and at length about feeling on one
hand, limited and marginalized within the congregation and on the other hand, feeling
‘over-used’ and ‘over-asked’ to do certain tasks. They then go on to describe how their
concerns about race are treated with suspicion and doubt by whites. In the following
excerpt we get a glimpse of what it feels like to nonwhites when their concerns about race

are discounted as though they are being overly-sensitive.

POC-F: I have been told, and I don’t know if other people of color around this table have been
told, that I bring up race too much That it’s not all about race, and I don’t think it is, but that I
bring it up too much and that I take too many things back to race, and that — one person even told
me that, ‘I feel like I have to watch what I say around you, because, you know, you’ll just — you’ll
make it racial.’ I would say that’s prejudice. That’s insulting to me, because you’re telling me you
don’t want to hear what I’m telling you, how it affects me as a person of color. You don’t want to
hear that, so that’s a direct insult... [Many respond, ‘Mhmrn. Mhmm.’]

139

POC-M: You know, it’s a tightrope between... You know, you could go off every five minutes.
You know, from the ‘those people’ comments, you know, when they’re referring to the kids in the
community, you know, to the ‘you people’ comments, um, and, you know, it’s not like
somebody’s swearing at you, but...

POC-F: ‘You people, you people.’
POC-M: There are days, that, you know, I might be one of those over-sensitized pe0ple and you

just want to go, ‘Uh-uh. We are not going there,’ you know, and you want to jump out of your
skin and forget you know love, that you love Jesus, you know.

Being stigmatized through comments like ‘you people’ and constantly being reminded
that ‘you bring up race too much’ serves to make people of color feel unwelcome and at
times insulted. In this excerpt we see that comments such as this cause people of color to
feel excluded and set apart and continually being reminded that ‘you are not like us’
(even in subtle ways) can create feelings of inferiority. Notice in the last sentence of this
example that the respondent is subtly accepting the label that nonwhites are overly-
sensitive, rather than remaining firm in his conviction that his complaints are valid.

We saw in the last section that whites tend to view racism in individualistic terms
as individual attitudes and beliefs that lead to particular individual discriminatory actions.
In contrast people of color tend to view racism in systemic terms. The oppression and hurt
experienced is much more than individual people’s acts of prejudice or discrimination
against people of color. People of color articulate clearly their experience of not having

the same opportunities or advantages that whites receive.

POC-F: I think it speaks to the fact that, once again, that we see this stufi as systemic, and we
underst - and I think it’s kind of this, um. . .I don’t know, innate knowing, because you... Well, I
can just speak personally for myself. I work with people who have good hearts and who want to
fight this thing, but at the same time they benefit from it. And so at the same time that I love them
sometimes I get pissed off because the system gives them a whole lot more than it gives me. And I
was just talking to somebody last week about this whole thing of entitlement. You know, how do
you even deal with that and then, um, even in the short conversation I happened to have last week,
to learn that this sense of entitlement was given to me by white folks. I didn’t have this strong
sense of that until I started coming to [this church]. Even before I started conring to [this church],
when certain things started happening in my life and then people stepped in and helped me in
different places, all those people that helped me were white folks. And what it did was kind of
affirm that stuff that ‘they got everything, I have nothing, so yeah, they should give me some of
their stuff, because I don’t have anything anyway.’ So then you have to also fight that entitlement
thing and then being mad at the system, because the system gives all the baubles and stuff to the

140

white folks and then you’ve got these white folks that you love who you know love you who hate
the sin, and so there’s just a whole lot of conflict that’s going on as well. You know, so, urn, yeah,
I love the person, but I hate the sin.

An interesting contradiction seemed to emerge among the people of color in this
study. Strong language was often used in their comments about how ‘white-people’
(hyphen and quotes, intentional) oppress and hurt them—deliberately, purposely,
intentionally and consciously. But within ahnost every interview comments were also
made about the development and growth of trusting relationships between some people of
color and some whites. It was difficult at first to interpret the ‘white-people’ comments
in relationship to the comments made about love and trust developing cross-racially. As
this was probed in later interviews and in member checks with participants in the study, it
gradually became apparent that the way to interpret it is to understand that for some
people of color ‘white-people’ are viewed as a powerfirl collective entity which causes
pain and suffering through systemic mechanisms which oppress them. Individual white
people (as distinct from ‘white-people’) can become allies and friends in the struggle for
racial equality but this does not negate the impact of ‘white-people’ (as a system of
oppression). This distinction helps to explain how people of color can hold seemingly
contradictory views of whites. Here is an excerpt fi'om an interview where a woman of
color is making a distinction between white people and ‘white-people ’ and the tension she

sometimes feels in being with them.

I: Talk to me nrore about how people of color are included in this church. And also, how are they
excluded, you know in some of the stuff you’ve...

POC-F: Well...
I: In terms of — so it’s not just how it looks on Sunday morning, but how is it. . .?
POC-F: Right. Well, I think there’s a real intentionality to include people of color, but I know — I

can say for my personal self, sometimes to be around white people is work, because I can’t be me.
I can’t — you know, I might say something and they’ll go, ‘Oh, what does that mean?’ or, ‘Why do

141

you say that?’ or, ‘Why do you do that?’ [nasally tones] or you can just see — you just nrade this
comment and they are clueless, because their growing up, their environment, their culture, all this
stuff is different than mine. But when I get with my-- my folks, you know, we can just, hoooo. ..

I: Talk in short hand.

POC-F: Exactly, exactly, and be us, and I think that’s true with any culture. So to be — you brow,
to go out on Friday nights, or come over to a house for dinner, or whatever it might be, it’s work,
it’s work. Now there are certain white people that in the ten years I’ve been here I’ve gotten to be
very close with and so I can just call and say, ‘Let’s go to a nrovie,’ and I don’t - you know,
whatever, it’s just okay. But it is work. White people want to include us, and to some degree we
want to be included, but I think that some degree corrres in that. . .you know, ‘I know here, I’ve
been with white folks all day at work, when I had to go to the bank, when I had to the grocery
store — just give me a break right now.’ And that’s...

1: Let me rest.

POC-F: Exactly. And I remember one of the trainers said that one of the things she realized about
herself in going through this training is that she didn’t look at white people as people. They were
just — they were white people, but they weren’t just people.

1: Sort of as a group? She looked at them as a collect — you know, they’re the ‘white-people’?

POC-F: It’s kind of almost like another species. ‘They’re white-people; they aren’t people. They
aren’t people; they’re white-people.’ And so it’s alnrost like you objectify, like there’s a purpose
for white people. You know, when I go to work I’m with white-people, when I go to get some
money I’m going to a white-person, when I go to do this, and I know most of the structures that I
deal with are owned by white-people,’ so it’s like white-people are a function or an object, but not
people. And so she said, ‘I really had’ — and when she said that I thought, ‘I can so relate to that.’
It’s almost like, um, in some sense - the best way — they can sometimes be a means to an end, but
they’re not a person that I have community with, and that’s what I have to work to make happen.

But I think that’s the way society has set it up is that there’s this wall, this invisible wall that exists
between white people and people of color and people of color know that we are stepping into
white-people’s world. But I do think [our church] people are working to open the doors for pe0ple
of color, it’s just figuring out how to do it the right way. And then I was thinking about, we have
this team of willing workers and basically what they do is make sure our kitchen is kept clean, and
I think there’s five women on this team. . .five, and one man I think, and four of the women are
African-American and one woman is white and the man is white, and my problem with that is,
here we go, fulfilling that stereotype. Now, we’re fulfilling it because they chose to be on that
committee. Nobody had to ask them really, they just chose to be this committee, but - and so I
want to say to them, ‘Hello! We don’t need you in the kitchen all the time; we need you in
leadership positions, we need you coordinating some stuff, we need your voice on some things.
Don’t just go to the kitchen. Go to the leadership positions as well.’ So, you know...

The challenge in analyzing this dialogue is in trying to understand what the respondent

actually means when she uses the phrase, white people. She seems to have internalized

two different views of whites and she is just beginning to understand these differences

and how they might affect her in congregational interactions. She desires to see white

142

people as people she could eventually ‘have community with’ rather just treat white-
people as a means to an end for something she needs or wants. F urtherrnore, in the
example she gives of the kitchen team the respondent is acbrowledging that pe0ple of
color tend to view themselves as servers first rather than to view themselves as potential
leaders. The hope is that as people of color begin to see themselves on par with whites,
they will begin to offer their gifts in leadership positions in the church and not only serve
in the kitchen. One potential way this may happen is when the structures of the church
are changed in ways so that they work on behalf of nonwhites, too, rather than only
serving the interests of the dominant white groups.

As long as people of color continue to experience the system working against
them, they will experience a certain degree of internal conflict. In addition to and
perhaps because of having internalized two different views of whites (either the enemy as
in ‘white-people’ or allies as in white people), people of color fluctuate between being
angry and being conciliatory. For example, a respondent may speak from a position of
deep anger frustration and then a few minutes later within the same interview give a
response that seems to contradict the earlier anger and become ahnost conciliatory to

whites.

POC-M: You know, I want to be honest with you, because I don’t want you to leave with the idea
that I don’t trust white peoples, and especially that white man. I don’t want to leave with that and I
don’t want that in my heart, you know what I’m saying. That’s why I’d rather just stay on down
here with [my church] and love the people in this community, uh, you know. But I’m with my
brothers here; as long as they want to keep this thing going [the antiracism initiative] I’m leaving
them the ball, I’m in it one hundred percent, but if it were left up to me, shoot. ..

Sometimes a person of color may speak fi'om a position of resignation to the way things
are. Part of this sense of resignation on the part of people of color is revealed in their

hesitation to come to the table for continued dialogue and work to confront racism.

143

POC-M: ...because we’ve tried so many things over the years, our non-white folks are tired,
because every time that we try something they have to put their stuff on the table, and so it takes a
lot of energy.

I: And vulnerability.

POC-M: And vulnerability, and some of it, you brow, you put it out there and you get stepped on,
and so we have a number of folks that at this time are saying, ‘Yeah, been there, done that, and
don’t ask me to get involved because I don’t want to go there. That’s too painful for me to deal
with, so I’ll just. . .,’ you know. So this is sonrething that, yeah, at this point in time there are some

that are I think intellectually wanting to go forth, okay; emotionally may not know what really
they’re saying. Or maybe emotionally distant, because of what’s involved.

People of color describe growing tired of the ‘battle’ and losing energy to keep fighting
the ‘system.’ It is hard work; it requires vulnerability and a Willingness to reveal yourself
and often people of color feel like this has already been tried and failed so a sense of
hopelessness and resignation has been internalized.

Further, people of color express that when they do come to the table for dialogue
the whites don’t really listen to people of color. They know what they want to do and

are going to do what they want to do anyway.

POC-M: But here it’s a slick, silent talk. He could sit at the table and listen to me, and still won’t
say nothing, and go on and do what he wants to do. None of my ideas are respected.

I: So you feel like you’re overlooked and...

POC-M: Even at [---— Church] right now. You got a guy there in a leadership role right there;
supposed to be connected with [our church], but when he comes to the table, he comes to the table
— you can look at his face and tell that he don’t listen to those ideas, he’s going to do what he
wants to do anyway.

I: Mm-hmm. So it makes you feel like you’re invisible or being treated like you’re invisible. ‘We
don’t have to listen to your idea; we’re just going to do what we want to do anyway.’

POC-M: They’re going to do what they want to do anyway; exactly, exactly. Their folks are going
to do what they want to do anyway. That’s why I really focus my focus on what God called me at
[this church] rather than trying to. . .I ain’t got time to wrestle.

1: Yeah, yeah So...

POC-M: But the white man up north. . .something else.

I: Talk more about that. What’s that mean?

POC-M: That means that he is slick and cunning. [chuckles] ...if I can use those words.

144

I: Mhmm

POC-M: Because he understands that it’s his table and he’s going to call the shots at his own table,
and even though he sits and nods his head like this here, again I say he’s going to do what he
wants to do. That’s what I’m saying about he’s slick and he’s cunning, and he always comes with
a preexisting motive. He’s got a game plan --and he’s smarter anywaynof how he wants to do
things.

This interview reflects almost a sense of resignation for the respondent of color. He can
give his opinion or his suggestions but he feels like the whites at the table will not
necessarily listen to him and that they will do what they want to do anyway. A number
of respondents of color made comments about whites going to do what they want no
matter what. Notice the small comment at the end where the respondent is saying the
white man has got a game plan and then he inserts---‘and he’s smarter anyway’---of how
he want to do things. This is a subtle comment, easily missed, where the respondent of
color reveals an internalized message that the white man is smarter.

It is important to note that whites are not the only people who have a hard time
recognizing the effects of the racialized society. The American culture is so focused on
individualism that it is difficult at times for the average American citizen of any race to
understand societal structures and how they operate. Scholars of race and religion claim
that many white religious Americans are unable to perceive or are unwilling to accept
social structural influences (Emerson and Smith 2000). However the findings of this
congregational research suggest that some nonwhites have also been influenced by this
individualistic perspective dominant in the larger society and they also have not been able
to recognize systemic issues until it is pointed out to them. For some people of color, the
antiracism training has enabled them to explain in an articulate way a reality they have
experienced but previously had been unable to name. The training has given words to and

a common language for a racial reality that previously they have not been able to put into

145

words. The following two examples are from men of color who describe how the
antiracism training has validated their life experience by giving them words to explain
what they brow to be true from experience. The first respondent is answering a question

about his own racial awareness.

1: I’d like to talk a little bit more about —about how you’ve experienced race in the larger
American society. I’d like you to tell me a little of. . .when did you become conscious of being a
black male?

POC-M: To be honest I. . .maybe I would say within the last ten years, in my thirties. I was thirty-
sonrething when I became conscious of it. I wasn’t aware - well. . .I became more conscious of it
during my first two-and-a-half day training, which is a long time for me. I was just talking to the
pastor about this. I grew up in a diverse neighborhood. Most of my neighbors were white, okay,
and I had one childhood experience where I realized. . .a white cop choked me one time when I
was in the mall, and my fiiends were doing things, but I wasn’t doing anything. And because I
wasn’t doing anything I didn’t feel that I needed to be put out of the mall. So I had a few words to
say, just to back myself up. And he choked me. And I didn’t think of prejudice at that time. I
didn’t think white-black; I started disliking cops period because of that incident

I: This was a white cop I assume?

POC-M: This was a white cop, yeah. Not because they were white or black, but because I had
received an injustice from one of them, so I began to have a dislike for all of them. It wasn’t a
white or black issue at that time for me, you know, and I was, I think it was in ’93, ’94, ’95, I was
fighting against something. I had gotten my bachelor’s degree at Baker College. I had [gone] to
school for the job that I was in. I had received an associate’s degree in SPC, which is statistical
process control, which qualified rrre to do a little bit more than what I was doing as an inspector.
They were willing to take my knowledge for the betterment of the company, but they were not
willing to promote me into a supervisory position, which - I had already had supervisory
experience, and they chose to promote a white woman that I had trained that did not have a high
school diploma. And I was still na'r‘ve towards racism. [laughs] You know? Uh, I was just na‘r‘ve. I
was wondering, ‘What was I fighting?’ Because I was fighting for the position and I was told I
would receive the position, but I was still na’r've as to what I was fighting against, you know. So
after going through my first two-and-a-half-day training the scales fell from my eyes and I realized
that I was dealing with racism, you know? But it’s hard to fight something as an individual,
ignorant — at that time I was ignorant, because I didn’t grow up - I grew up in the sixties. You
know, I was a kid during the sixties so I grew up listening and seeing, but not experiencing it. I
didn’t experience it. I went to a multi-cultural - not multi-cultural, but it was fifty-fifty, blacks and
whites, and we did not have an attitude. There was no prejudice that I perceived at that time.

I: And you didn’t feel like you were segregated?

POC-M: Hmm-mm. No. No.

I: Blacks and whites nringled comfortably?

POC-M: Yeah, it was very comfortable, so I didn’t experience it during my youth or as I came up,
I didn’t experience it. Because I didn’t experience it I didn’t identify with it until later on.

Hindsight they say is twenty-twenty. After I went through that training I realized what I was
dealing with

146

1: Yeah So what about the training made the scales fall from your eyes? What specifically can you
remember about that?

POC-M: Mnr, the system, because I was dealing with a system. I was dealing with a system of
privilege.

I: Mm-hmm. That you never really thought about as such.

POC-M: Never thought about it, because I thought in myself that if I was as good as the next
person that I would be promoted right along. . .as quickly if not faster than the next person. If I put
forth the effort and I was qualified to do the job, then I would be promoted based on my merits,
not based on my color. And it just didn’t happen like that for me. And I realized then that there
was a system in place that continued to oppress you regardless of how educated you became. You
still — you may do a little bit better, but as far as shooting for the moon and falling into the stars,
that just wasn’t going to happen, and I burnt a lot of energy fighting a system. . .fighting a losing
battle. And I asked several times to my supervisor, ‘What am I dealing with here?’ I had not a
clue.

What this demonstrates is that it is possible for people of color to fail to recognize the
systemic nature of racism if they have had certain advantages such as advanced
education, increased socio-economic status or even a racially integrated residential
location. Analysts must use caution when explaining race privilege and avoid simplistic
explanations that assume all nonwhites have a greater awareness of the racialized system
than do whites. Other cultural influences may have bearing on these perceptions. This
respondent is a college-educated black male who has lived in multiracial environments
for at most of his life. These influences have given him ‘eyes to see’ certain aspects of
and to be blinded by certain aspects of the racialized society.

When a person experiences repeated oppression and it is done in subtle ways, it is
easy to internalize blame and assume it is your own fault. Another respondent of color
describes how the antiracism initiative has confirmed some of his life experience and has
helped him recognize that he is ‘not hallucinating’ or imagining these experiences. In this
case it is not so much that the training helped bring to light aspects of systemic racism

with which he was unfamiliar. Rather hearing the stories of others as expressed through

147

the antiracism training and follow-up meetings has served to remind him that others have

experienced similar oppression and he is not alone in the struggle.

POC-M: But [some people] don’t have that mindset, you don’t have that willingness or wanting to
learn to be right, to dismantle racism, to see how racism works as a systemic beast, and how it’s
not only hurting me, it is hurting you. If it wasn’t for the goodness and grace of God, and here I
am fifty-three years old, and this prograrrr, the [antiracism training] program, actually got me to
the point where I can sit down and talk about this without having to go out here and break
something or somebody. You talk about pain and anger, and raising six children...

I: How did [the training] do that? What about it helped you be able to talk about it?

POC-M: Um, one of the biggest things was it allowed all the things that I had seen and learned
over the years, I saw it all coming together in one place so that I wasn’t hallucinating, because the
white man will tell you that white is white and black is black, and every time you say, ‘no, black is
black and white is white,’ [smack] he hits you over the head. . .. But he don’t talk about all the
years he [smack] beat you over the head, [smack] beat you over the head, and taught you
something, and that’s the way the society is. ‘We say we love you, but we won’t give you any
money. We say we want you to succeed, but we won’t open any doors for you.’

The reflections on black experiences and the incidents recounted in the interviews weave
together to show the web of intentional and unconscious discrimination which leads to
internalized racism. Nonwhite Americans soon come to realize that no amount of hard
work or achieved status can completely protect them from racial oppression which exists
across numerous institutional arenas of this society. People of color may, as a young
people, have little awareness of the systemic nature of race privilege but soon have

experiences that make this obvious to them.

The impact of ‘color-blind ’ racism on all people Scholars have documented that one of
the dominant cultural messages to emerge within the past four decades and grew out of
the post Civil Rights era is the ideology of color-blind racism that supports a ‘new’
racism that is more covert, subtle, systemic (Bonilla-Silva 2001; 2003). This ideology
explains contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial factors, such as

market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, or cultural preferences such as groups

148

of people prefer to live with similar people. Color-blind racism as an ideology affects all
Americans and it has had tremendous cultural impact by obscuring the structural
elements of the racialized society. This color-blind perspective is evident in comments
well-meaning people make about how color doesn’t or shouldn’t matter without a clear
understanding of how race does, in fact, affect the structure of American society. The
widespread comments people make about the need to build a ‘color-blind’ society are, in
fact, subtle ways to maintain a racial hierarchy in which whites are dominant.

, Respondents in this research reveal just how powerful the internalized message of
color-blind racism is among all people regardless of their racial position. At times
conversational partners would claim race was not significant in their life experience and
would try to prove this by saying all people are the same. In the following exchange
between a woman of color and a white woman both claim race had nothing to do with
how they grew up. They try to normalize this crucial aspect of their lives by not
recognizing it as an issue or discounting the impact of living racially segregated lives.
They seem to be operating from within a common storyline about race—that all people
are the same—but when their comments are analyzed it is clear that all people are not the

same.

POC-F: they didn’t started a-bussing white kids and black kids until after I graduated, which
was in ’68, seventies, and then - that’s why I said we didn’t know nothing about black and white.
Everybody was the same.

W-F: That’s the way I grew up. Everybody was the same. ..

POC-F: Equal, everything.

W-F: And it - yeah, but it was understood that if you were black or not Christian Reformed you
didn’t live in G-- Township. That was just understood back then. And it wasn’t until I got

in high school that I actually saw a black person in my school, and it was just one family, two
kids, and then it wasn’t until my late twenties that I lived in Grand Rapids and there was a black
family behind me and one of the girls came up and bugged me, and I was like, ‘What do I do?’
You know? ‘What do I do?’ because I’d never been raised around them. I never — I could have
told you back then, ‘I’m not racist, I’m not racist,’ but when a twelve year old girl bugged me I

149

didn’t brow what to do, and... I mean, after a while I learned just to hug them back, but it did take
awhile.

Notice the contradiction in claiming everyone was the same yet ‘it was understood that if
a person was black or not Christian Reformed’ there were places you could not live. The
respondent seems to interpret this as normal or at least does not recognize her racial
isolation from minorities as a problem. She tries to say that color didn’t matter when she
was growing up but her life experience contradicts this. Color did matter and it affected
where people could live and go to school; it affected how different racial groups
interacted with one another, and it still affects her today in the language she uses to
describe her experience. Notice she is talking with a woman of color from her own
congregation but in this conversation she uses the word ‘them’ in describing blacks. This
implies that she sees people of color as ‘Other.’ This suggests that despite her comments
that race/color does not matter, she has internalized a cultural message that says it does
make a difference.

A dominant story line among whites in the rhetoric about our racialized society is
that race/color should make no difference in terms of life opportunities and experiences.
It is noteworthy that even some people of color have absorbed this message. At the
conclusion of a long interview with a person of color who articulated clearly many facets
of institutional racism in the congregation, he is asked about the future and whether he

has hope for change.

I: What’s your sense of the future of this initiative? I mean, do you feel a sense that change is
possrble? Do you feel hopeful or do you feel like it’s pretty fragile?

POC-M: . . .The environment in our church in particular is one that, you know, the young folks that
are conring up, they don’t see color. I see color in the people around us. So there’s some stuff
going on. I’m hopeful.

150

This response is striking given that he so eloquently spoke about the struggle he and other
people of color have experienced in their congregation yet his answer about the future
was a simplistic response that young people do not see color as if to imply given enough
time, color will not matter. This contradicts earlier comments he made about the need for
structural change which can happen only if we acknowledge how race places limits on
some people. This response reveals that societal messages about a color-blind society
can and do impact our collective subconscious. People can hold apparently contradictory
views simultaneously. On one hand there is recognition that we need to change
structural aspects of our racialized society; on the other hand assumptions are made that if
only people didn’t recognize race, then our problems would be solved. This color-blind
ideology that subtly ignores the structural elements of racism was evident in many of the
responses despite the fact that the rhetoric used and the perspectives most respondents
articulated would seem on the surface to counter to a color-blind ideology. In order for
structural change to occur, people first need to recognize the power race has in shaping
our institutions. To avoid this recognition by attempting to be color-blind will short-
circuit attempts to make needed structural change. For example although the people
interviewed openly discussed how their Christian faith perspective influences their views
on race and racism, at times these views seemed to be ‘trumped’ by an unconscious
absorption of the dominant American cultural messages seeking a color-blind society.
Unless these contradictions are brought out into the open and honestly acbrowledged,

examined and confronted the hope of dismantling racism remains an unattainable dream.

151

Summary

In this chapter we have explored how racism has been internalized in both whites
and people of color by examining the language respondents use and the rhetorical
positions they assume when describing their experience of race/racialization in their
congregations. This has revealed some of what the people believe, consciously and
unconsciously, about race and racism. Becoming aware of and conscious of the tacit
assumptions we hold is a necessary first step in the dismantling of racism. The
participants in this study speak articulately and give examples from their lived experience
of a racial hierarchy in American culture, even within their congregations. However as
we have seen, the findings of this study reveal not only the difficulty of bringing to
consciousness that which has been internalized but also the persistent cultural forces that
are subtly at work to maintain the status quo.

How do we know what was studied is racism—because the research participants
themselves named it as such in describing their lived experience in their congregations.
This has been validated by the participants as being an authentic understanding of their
experience and it has been validated through the scholarly literature on race and
racialization. The empirical findings are consistent with theory (i.e. have theoretical
validity) and have catalytic validity as well.

Catalytic validity points to the degree to which research moves those it studies to

understand the world and the way it is shaped in order for them to transform

it. . .Research that possesses catalytic validity will not only display the reality-

altering impact of the inquiry process, it will direct this impact so that those under

study will gain self-understanding and self-direction (Kincheloe and McLaren

2000:297)

The key is that the research participants name their experience as racism and this has

been a motivating factor for their action and deeper self-reflection. Their ‘truth’ will

152

continue to evolve as it is dynamic but this research accepts their understanding of this
experience as racism because they have identified it as such.

Three broad conclusions have emerged from the empirical data in chapters 5 and
6 which reveal how people of color and whites approach the issues of race and racism
from strikingly different standpoints. The literature suggests that these strikingly
different standpoints are the result of internalized messages about racial superiority and
racial inferiority/ oppression which form the foundation of the racialized American
society.
1) Centrality/peripheraltty of race First, the findings of this research confirm what has
been identified by other scholars that people of color articulate the centrality of race both
historically and in their own everyday experience and whites view race as a peripheral
reality and do not perceive themselves as racist (Chavez, et. al. 2002; Blauner 1994). In
this study people of color describe in detail how race is central in their lives and it shapes
their perceptions of what is possible and the roles they play in the life of the
congregation. By contrast, whites view race as peripheral and race is not something that
is given much thought when they consider their involvement in the congregation. The
findings are consistent with contemporary theory on race and therefore suggest
theoretical validity. These findings also have interpretive validity in that they were
verified through peer review and member checking.
2) Systemic/ individualistic nature of racism Second, the findings reveal that whites
tend to We the problem of racism in individualistic terms as overt attitudes or actions
that white individuals do to oppress people of color whereas people of color frame the

problem as systemic oppression and this was validated through member checking with

153

both whites and people of color. People of color describe how the systems or processes
within the church tend to exclude them even when individual white people attempt to be
inclusive. Because of the effort and initiative to include nonwhites within these
congregations, whites have a difficult time seeing how the structures of the congregation
can exclude and oppress people of color. This leads whites to use argumentative
strategies to deny or discount the significance of race and/or discrimination in the
congregation and they often seek to find alternate explanations to race.

3) Awareness of race power and privilege Third, people of color and whites have a
vastly different awareness of race power and privilege in the functioning of their
congregations because of their strikingly different standpoints on race (#1 above) and
racism (#2 above). People of color describe the subtle ways race functions to
disadvantage them and are shocked that whites cannot see the privileges they are afforded
in American society and in these congregations because they are white. By contrast,
whites often do not recognize whiteness as a race and assume race is synonymous with
persons of color. Because of this whites often have little recognition of the role their own
race plays in the privileges they receive within the congregation. This interpretation has
been confirmed through member checking and peer review and is also consistent with
contemporary theory on race and racialization.

One of the most interesting findings of this research is the stark contrast among
whites and people of color in recognizing race privilege. Whites often appear to speak
flour a position of ignorance and seeming unawareness and people of color believe that
this is disingenuous and dishonest. Because nonwhites have no trouble producing

specific examples of the racialization of the congregations, they often express disbelief

154

that whites cannot see the privilege they have. Strong language is often used about how
whites intentionally, deliberately and purposefully work to maintain white power and

privilege, which oppresses people of color.

I: It’s interesting how subtle this is. I mean I think if you were - usually if you were to name it to a
white man they don’t necessarily see it, just like we don’t often...

POC-M: Just let me give you a prime point. I’m going to give you the evidence right today. This is
why I’m having a hard time even coming to the anti-racism meeting, because they ’re lying, they ’re
lying, they ’re lying. [emphasis in original] They’ve been through this thing called they saw this
history around the thing, they saw the evidence. I don’t know if you would know this or not, but
the [denomination] is up in a rattle right now, because they fired the whole, laid oft~ the whole
Hispanic team. Blacks and things are leaving and never can be retained. They’re talking about, uh,
empowering blacks and stuff like this here, and they’re firing these people up at the [denomination
headquarters]. And they call it up under the name, ‘an economic crunch,’ money, but they’re
getting rid of — if this is supposed to have been something important to you, to break down walls
and to retain and uplift blacks, why are you firing them all up there right now?

In this example, a person of color expresses that whites knowingly and consciously
oppress nonwhites and when they don’t admit this, they are lying. Yet when whites are
asked about their oppressing people of color, they express bewilderment, surprise, or
confiision. This particular example was one in which the researcher did member
checking by making follow-up phone calls to probe for greater understanding of the
respondent’s meaning.

These sharply differing perspectives among the white participants and the
participants of color presented a dilemma in analysis for the primary researcher because
of her ascribed racial position and privilege. During peer review a colleague of color
challenged the primary researcher to discern whether whites are speaking from an
authentic ignorance in which they truly cannot see because they are blinded by their
racial position in society or whether they are speaking from an intentional/self-preservin g
‘ignore-ance,’ in which whites intentionally adopt a posture of ignoring what is blatantly

obvious to people of color. (Isom 2004, personal communication). Many whites appear

155

to not understand the power or significance of race in the operation of the congregations.
Letting go of “ignore-ance” on the part of the dominant race would require the courage to
see and to name the power race has to shape institutions. Insofar as we try to ignore race
and our racialized society by attempting to be color-blind, we hurt all people. To
confront racism and begin the process of dismantling it, all of us—whites and
nonwhites—need to develop a greater cognizance of race and the power it has to shape
our daily experiences and sense of self.

This study suggests that people of all races in these congregations have
internalized racist perspectives because of our racialized social systems. No one can
claim neutrality, though it is very tempting to hide behind a color-blind rhetoric. Our
society has taught us to repress racist ideas rather than to abolish them. Becoming race
cognizant is a first step in the dismantling process. People of color need to be able to
name how race has impacted them and bring to consciousness the ways they have
internalized oppression so they can confront it. Whites also need to be able to name what
whiteness means—‘examining and narrring the terrain of whiteness’ (Frankenberg
1993:7). This forms a foundation for working toward and generating antiracist
institutions.

The role internalized racism plays in supporting and reinforcing institutional
racism needs to acknowledged and openly confronted. Part of the strategy to begin
dismantling institutional racism in these congregations has been to do intentional work to
recognize internalized racism and then to tackle the effects of internalized racism
directly. In Chapter 7 we will examine the initial steps being taken by the antiracism

teams to confront internalized racism and begin the process of dismantling it.

156

Chapter 7—Signposts of Hope

We need people who not only speak truth to racism but who can envision a future church
where racism is no longer a defining characteristic of our faith.
from United By Faith (2003)

Challenges

Beginning to understand how institutional racism operates in the specific settings
of these three congregations has been a challenging enterprise for both the people of color
and the white people in these congregations. But even more challenging has been the
growing recognition of the impact of internalized racism to reinforce and support the
structural aspects of racism in the congregations. It has required deep and honest
conversation about people’s lived-experience regarding race and this work has not always
been pleasant or easy.

Part of the difficulty as we have seen in Chapters 5 and 6 is that whites and pe0ple
of color tend to interpret the dynanrics of our racialized society very differently. The
empirical findings illustrate that they experience different realities day in and day out.
The findings are also consistent with those reported in the literature. Whites tend to
believe, act and communicate as though there are few or no race-based motivations or
implications in the functioning of our society while most people of color tend to believe
the opposite—that race-based motives and structures affect all aspects of life (Bratt
2001). Most whites and people of color tend to fundamentally doubt the validity of the
other group’s reported life experiences. Whites often seek alternate explanations to what
people of color describe as race-based. People of color often claim they believe whites
are not honest when they deny race-based motivations and implications. This leads to a

genuine distrust of one another. Ethnic and racial groups tend not to trust each other at a

157

basic level and both sides tend to withhold and withdraw fiom each other. Unless these
differences are recognized and acknowledged, the work of dismantling racism will not go
forward.

Over the course of the last two years, participants in this study have gradually
grown in their understanding of what it means to become antiracists. The scholarly
literature on racism argues that this requires movement from a state of anesthesia and
numbness to a state of consciousness and action (Bamdtl99l ). “Being an antiracist
begins with understanding the institutional nature of racial matters and accepting that all
actors in a racialized society are affected materially (receive benefits or disadvantages)
and ideologically by the racial structure [emphasis in original]. This stand implies taking
responsibility for your unwilling participation in these practices and beginning a new life
committed to the goal of achieving real racial equality”(Bonilla-Silva 2003:15).

In this final empirical chapter we will discuss the initial efforts of the antiracism
teams to confront the anesthesia of internalized racism as well as their efforts to make
structural changes within the institution of their congregations. These are beginning
steps and this work requires perseverance and tenacity. This chapter describes the
process for institutional change being undertaken and offers signposts of hope. Then, in
the spirit of a scholar-practitioner approach to research, the chapter offers
recommendations both for practice and for future research.

The overarching goal has been to make more explicit the impact race has on the
functioning of the congregations and this has been worked on in two primary way ---
through caucusing to confront internalized racism and through strategy meetings to

confront institutional racism. Strategizing to make institutional change will be limited if

158

effort is not made to confront internalized racism first. Strategy sessions involving
institutional analysis and planning for institutional change are very intentionally
separated from the conversations about internalized racism. In other words, each
congregational team has monthly meetings for analyzing and building strategies to
dismantle institutional racism. And separate from these strategy meetings, the three
teams gather jointly for the sole purpose to explore, dialogue, and probe deeply how
internalized racism has operated in all our lives and turned us into racists without our

consciousness and often without our willingness.

Confronting Intemalized Racism through Caucusing

One significant aspect of the antiracism training is its focus on how whites have
internalized racist superiority and how people of color have internalized racist oppression
which leads to inferiority. The antiracism training has focused on helping participants
begin to see how this internalization has affected the formation and maintenance of our
racialized society. During the course of the first eight months of this antiracism initiative
it gradually became clear that to confront institutional racism, serious work needs to be
done to recognize and acbrowledge internalized racism.

Caucusing was introduced as a tool to enable participants to recognize, admit and
confront their internalized racism. Caucusing encourages participants to consider with a
degree of painful honesty who ‘we have been turned into.’ How do whites distance
themselves from acbrowledging how race privilege has worked to their advantage? How
do fear, shame, and/or feelings of guilt lead to excuses and denial? How do people of

color get stuck in blaming whites and continuing to focus on the past? How do

159

nonwhites disassociate themselves from their identity as nonwhites and unconsciously
seek to be like whites?

At first caucusing was used during training events to help participants in separate
racial groupings begin to understand what racism has done to them-«both people of color
and whites. Eventually the three teams decided that caucusing is such an important piece
of this work that they wanted to build it into their on-going work. Various suggestions
were tried as the participants struggled to figure out how to use caucusing to really
explore internalized racism. It may be helpful here to describe for the reader the process
and structure currently being used for caucusing. Various attempts at caucusing were
tried and it has taken these antiracism teams months to develop a process that works with
any degree of success.

The structure and process for caucusing The three antiracism teams agreed to hold a
separate meeting once a month specifically focused on addressing internalization issues.
All participants from the three teams are invited one Friday evening a month (that in
itself is amazing that people will make a Friday night cormnitrnent to such an event!) to
gather for dinner and then to split into racially separate groups and meet in different parts
of the building for several hours of more in-depth and honest dialogue. In these racially-
separated groupings people talk more openly about how they are starting to recognize
internalized racial superiority or racial inferiority. After the designated time, the white
caucus and the people of color caucus re-convene for a short reporting out of what was
just discussed. Very clear ground rules are set about confidentiality, about not offering

judgment or critique during the reporting out and about not strategizing about how to

160

‘fix’ something. The purpose of caucusing is to deepen understanding about internalized
racism and to develop ‘eyes to see it.’

Once people have begun to see what has been invisible to them in the past, there
is a huge temptation is rush in and try to make immediate change. Most of the time this
has not been advisable. Rather the caucus groups need to have patience and stay focused
on developing the ability to recognize the subtle aspects of racism that all of us have
internalized. So for example, white people in their caucusing might explore how their
whiteness leads them to value quantity over quality in certain settings or the strong
tendency to seek perfectionism which can lead to handling mistakes in confusing ways
(failing to distinguish between making a mistake and being a mistake) or how the written
word is worshipped (those with strong documentation and writing skills are more highly
valued even in organizations or settings where relational skills or the ability to relate to
other people is key to the mission). People of color in their caucusing might explore how
they have internalized negative definitions of who they are such as valuing 1i ght-skinned
people more than darker-skinned people or how they compete with one another for
attention and affirrnation from white people in particular settings or how they de-value
the opinions of other people of color. There are many, many different ways to explore
how all of us have internalized racism and this work is difficult and requires people to
take huge risks with each other in talking about things are very deep, almost unconscious
and very painful when honestly confronted.

Progress in [its and starts These caucus groups have had to repeatedly be reminded
that the purpose of these monthly caucuses is strictly to focus on recognizing internalized

racism. Even though there may be a temptation to make suggestions for change or

161

action, this is not the primary purpose of the caucus. These caucusing sessions have _
been happening monthly for the past nineteen months and sometimes participants express
that these sessions are very helpful and other times participants express that they are a
waste of time. There has been confusion during caucusing especially in the early months
when everyone kept slipping into discussing what whites need to do to change rather than
facing how we all have internalized either racial superiority or racial inferiority. The
groups have needed to be reminded over and over again that the purpose of this work is
to confront what we have internalized and to postpone strategizing about change until we
are in team meetings. It has taken months for the caucusing groups to clarify this and
even now there are moments when this distinction is forgotten and the caucusing ends in
confusion.

In the early caucusing meetings conflict emerged because some people thought
these meetings should occur in mixed race groups to foster an understanding of each
other’s experience. But the trainers were adamant that the groups be separated by race
for these dialogues about internalization because how internalized racism develops is
quite different for people of color and for whites. For example whites by to distance
themselves from racism and this can be seen with whites’ tendency to defer to people of
color when discussing racism in mixed race groups. Whites sometimes act like only
people of color know anything about racism. This can prevent whites from looking deep
within and beginning to do the internal work needed to develop the ability to ‘see’ racism
in themselves. A person of color once shared at a meeting that it is a ‘red flag’ when a
white person says, ‘I need to hear the stories of people of color.’ While there is a time

where stories need to be shared so that empathy can be fostered, this can also be a

162

diversion tactic preventing a white person fiom doing self-examination. Each person is
encouraged in caucusing to wrestle to understand the self, rather than to focus on hearin g
the stories of people from different racial backgrounds. Here is a section of dialogue
between people of color describing how the caucusing has affected each of them and why

keeping the races separated for this work has been beneficial.

POC-M: Having to talk again about the analysis of racism creates a hurt within me and it takes
awhile to recover and deal with it. To embrace the analysis creates a sense of hopelessness. . .the
process of the caucus needs to end with encouragement and not stay stuck on the big picture.

POC-F: I walk away with a different picture. When we are caucusing, I finally come to
understand how much internalized racial oppression has been a part of my life. Embracing this
understanding was life-changing for me. It helps me see how I’ve internalized inferiority.
Realizing how society and racism has shaped men—naming it—- helps me to release it. I need to
be in the presence of other people of color to be able to talk about this.”

Though it took months of caucusing, agreement was eventually reached that we need to
be with our own people to wrestle to see how we have internalized either superiority or
inferiority. This is an important first step in confronting it.

Deep challenges Slow progress has been made as the groups have developed trust and
have grown in their own understanding of how to do the internal work that needs to be
done. However, there are deep challenges that must be and are being faced. For
example, people of color have described two of their biggest challenges—infighting
among themselves and preparing people of color to assume leadership. Here a person of
color describes how infighting within the group diverts the attention from the real work
that must be done to confront racism and it is only through caucusing that people of color

can develop the ‘eyes to see’ the role internalized racial oppression plays in this dynamic.

POC-F: One of the best answers that I got in the training highlighted four areas that people of
color struggle in, in the internalized racial oppression scene, and the fighting, the infighting
amongst people of color, was one of the things that is a product of racism that I never understood
before. And it becarrre s9 clear to me that if people of color can war against each other in any
effort to bring the races together, the attention, the energy, will be on the war against each other
and not on the battle against racism. And that just becarrre so clear, and so that helped me to stop

163

personalizing a whole lot of the situations that I’d find myself in. . .. people of color have such a
problem coming together to unite on issues that could make a difference. And not until being
exposed to this antiracism model... looking at the issues of internalized racial oppression and
internalized racial superiority, have I had a handle for how to define the war that goes on amongst
people of color, and then what to do about it. So when I look across the board, to ask myself how I
feel about this, [caucusing] the only thing that I have any hope for, because until people of color
can put down whatever issues they have amongst themselves and say, ‘the fight is racism, not
white people, and we have to unite against racism and stop fighting each other,’ will there be a
critical mass that will make an impact. And I’ve watched it on a personal note, I’ve watched it
across the board; I’m starting to listen to people who have been in public places for a long time
saying the sarrre thing year in and year out. . ..but definitely defining the infighting as being the
major obstacle as to why people of color can’t come together to deal with an issue. It’s, ‘who’s
going to be on top; what’s going to be the issue we’re going to fight; how come you can’t. . .?’ You
know, power struggles within the ranks, issue struggles within the ranks, that divides to the point
of losing sight of what we’re really doing,

Both whites and nonwhites have needed to be reminded to stay focused on their own
internal work and not keep trying to change the other. Caucusing is a place where this
has been reinforced and supported. Here a woman of color articulately explains her

understanding of the importance of caucusing.

POC-F: We people of color keep stepping in and trying to help whites. That’s their job. . ..We
have to trust whites to do their own work. Sorrretimes I’m frustrated, too, with the lack of change.
But my role... I’m called to inrpact people of color. My job is to create an environment where
people of color are allies with each other and to get us ready to take on power when change does
happen. We need people of color who are ready, willing, and able to pick up the mantle. I’m
trusting that whites are doing their own work. My responsibility is to the people of color caucus.”

Another signpost of hope in the dismantling of racism will be when peOple of color are
ready (and willing) to assume power and take on leadership responsibilities. On-going
conversation continues about how to facilitate this. Here a white respondent describes his

hopes for the future outcome of this antiracism work.

1: What’s your hope for where this antiracism team ---within the church-- will help take the
church? Do you have dreams and hopes about what will happen, and how might things be
different in two years, five years, ten years?

W-M: Mm-hmm. Well, the two areas that I think are key — the way our worship feels and
leadership - that will take us steps forward, and so we’ll be even more a truly multiethnic,
multicultural church in terms of power sharing and decision making, and I think one of the things I
hope it rrreans is that people of color will step to the plate more and that white people will have an
analysis of racism that’s way more helpful. I want it so clearly tied to the authority of the gospel
and the call of Jesus Christ and so much sewn into our educational process that when persons...
leave at age eighteen they have a call on their life about being antiracist and it’s grounded in the

164

gospel, and they’re fornred and shaped that way the rest of their life. So that’s really my hope and
goal for that. So how children, and teens in particular, get involved in this is real important.

Whites face different challenges than do nonwhites. One of the most difficult is
developing an awareness of what whiteness means in American society. It is not a
neutral term like many white Americans assume. Being white brings with it unearned
privilege and certain expectations. This respondent describes how the caucusing helps to

clarify and bring to consciousness what in the past has been a structured invisibility.

W—Fz—Maybe as we all gain insights, and what I mean by ‘we’, the white people gain insights, we
can help one another see how we do it [operating from a sense of privilege, entitlement, power,
assuming a sort of reality] in our place of work, how we’re still doing it in our place of worship.
Um, I think we need one another to point it out. I just - it’s just so. . .what we do. So...

I: Is it invisible to us?

W-F: Yes, I think it is invisible. It’s just- it’s habitual, it’s, you know, involuntary, it’s how we
breathe, it’s what we do, it’s, um. . .it’s certainly what we know, and it gets reinforced all the time,
you know. We go to a restaurant and expect to be served and if we’re not served, if we’re not
welcomed, you know, that’s a big deal. You go into a store, you don’t expect to be tailed by a
security cop; you might be insulted if you are—So, uh, I think it would n_ot be a good thing

if we stOpped caucusing. I think there’s an accountability to one another that should be fostered
over time and I think the caucus is a vehicle to provide that.

Caucusing has served as a vehicle to help whites develop a sense of what their whiteness
means within this society and within their congregations. It has helped bring to
consciousness what has been internalized and assumed regarding race and it has helped
develop a sense of accountability. In honest dialogue whites are beginning to ask new
types of questions about how their congregations operate, how leaders are chosen, how
programs are developed and whose preferences count in decision-making and resource
allocation. Caucusing has contributed to racial reconciliation but more importantly it has
helped whites to become allies with people of color in the struggle to make institutional

change.

POC-M: But when I fust came here... it was a different environment. I think it
was a more hostile environment than it is now. You know, now there 95; allies. There are people,
I’m as raw as raw gets with them, you know, and they don’t go, ‘okay, I’m not talking to

165

this. . .anymore.’ You know, they welcome it, and there’s healthy exchange, and I’ve seen growth,
on both of our parts.

Participants in this study are not na’r’ve about the breadth and depth of the change that is
needed. They are taking initial steps to address internalized racism through caucusing
and initial steps to address institutional racism through careful analyzing and

strategizing at ongoing at team meetings and joint meetings of all three teams.

Confronting Institutional Racism through Institutional Analysis and Strategizing

The need for structural change in the congregations has become more obvious as
participants have deepened their understanding of how institutional racism functions and
as this has been more openly acknowledged. Ongoing dialogue and work is occurring
to determine the best ways to make this happen—through individual congregational
antiracism team meetings, leader meetings for the leaders of all three teams, and
occasional joint antiracism team meetings.
Team meetings In addition to gathering for antiracism training days conscientious work
has also been done among the three teams to build a sense of solidarity and a deeper
honesty about how race impacts the life of the congregations. This work, though still in
the early stages of implementation, has helped shift the conversation within these
churches so that a greater understanding is starting to deve10p about the racialized
dynamics which exist even within these congregations. Through monthly meetings for
strategizing, organizing and motivating each other, members of each of these antiracism
teams are working to make careful, systematic change. These team meetings are helping
members to identify and analyze how the particular structures of their congregations

(including leadership, decision-making, language, culture, budgeting and accountability)

166

are racialized and give preferences to some members of their congregations and exclude
others. These team meetings involve discussion and analysis but also planning about
how to make needed structural change at many levels within the congregations. For
example it has been recognized that change is needed in the personnel and in some of the
programs/services provided by the congregations. These are the most visible areas where
change can be seen but the teams are recognizing that this can remain merely cosmetic,
not reaching to the level of structural change that is required. So conversation has also
included how to make change beyond just the constituency of the congregations but also
in the organizational structure of the congregations which will hopefully lead to change
in the broader mission and identity of the congregations. These strategy sessions are at
times fi'ustrating for the participants because of the tension of wanting instant change
while knowing this is a long-term, slow process. Participants are recognizing and
beginning to work on changing the processes for nominating leaders as well as the
process for developing antiracist leaders among people of color and whites within each
congregation. Consideration has been given to requiring antiracism training for all
prospective leaders and intense conversation has ensued about whether to require it or
merely encourage it for those interested in leadership positions in the church.
Participants are beginning to consider decision-making structures, including financial
decision-making and accountability particularly to people of color who have been
excluded in the past. At these monthly meetings, issues of power and misuse of power
within the institutional setting are becoming topics of conversation and consideration.
Discourse is happening about how to create a long-term sustainable identity as antiracist

congregations, not determined merely by the racial composition of the congregation but

167

more by how the congregation addresses whose preferences count in decision-making,
planning, and leadership. Here a participant of color describes her hope for how the

antiracism initiative will affect her congregation.

I: How important do you think this current antiracism initiative is to the life of the congregation?

POC-F: I think that if [our congregation] is going to. . .appreciate our rich racial, cultural diversity,
if we’re going to live that out, and if we are going to keep the people of color that we have and
attract more people of color, I think that this next step in our journey, implementing this model of
antiracism, is going to help to take us there if we do it right. I think what will happen is, we’ll
change not just the way we look, but we’ll change the underpinnings that determine how we
function, determine policies, determine procedures, that within - hopefirlly we’ll be accountable to
a body of people of color, so that whenever we make decisions, whatever we do, there’s an
accountability to a body of people of color and that we aren’t just doing stuff to people of color
and for people of color, but it’s done with people of color, and I’d like to think that this analysis,
this model, is going to help us do that.

This respondent uses the word ‘if’ numerous times in this passage recognizing there will
be many challenges the congregation must face if it hopes to succeed in making

important institutional changes.

The role of the team leaders The role of the team leaders in this initiative should not be
underestimated. Each congregational antiracism team has had at least two team leaders
who have agreed to provide leadership for this ongoing work. They have endured heated
conflict, misunderstanding, and at times anger but most have persevered and have
provided an important link between the churches. They serve as a conduit of information
from their individual teams to the larger group of three congregational teams and from
the larger group back to the individual teams. The team leaders serve in a significant way
by keeping the issue of antiracism before the congregation and pressing to keep the
agenda moving forward.

One of the striking things which emerged at a team leaders meeting about two

years into the process was that this group of team leaders has become an accountability

168

group to each other and it encourages them all to keep going. It would be much more
difficult if any one of these churches was working on this individualistically. This is an
important finding of this study because it reveals evidence of solidarity and collective
strength and the developing of accountability between whites and people of color.
Participants are recognizing that they have claims on one another and that they need each
another to be able to identify, analyze and then plan for institutional change.

Ongoing antiracism training for additional congregational members Another small
signpost of hope is the expansion of antiracism training within these congregations. The
original members of these congregational antiracism teams (approximately 48 people)
have now begun assisting the denomination in organizing ongoing antiracism training.
These two and half day trainings have occurred three times each year for the past two
years and about 40 new people have attended each one. This has kept the issue of
institutional racism on people’s minds and among the members of the three congregations
studied it has led to a continuing conversation about the role race plays in the life of the
congregation. A slow but steadily growing number of people are beginning to consider
how racism has shaped their congregation and they are beginning to analyze and discuss

how to make necessary changes.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, some initial recommendations can be offered
for others interested in confionting institutional racism, particularly in congregational
settings. There are implications for practice but there are also important implications for

future research. Each will be highlighted.

169

Recommendations for practice Open acknowledgment and recognition of the racialized
nature of our institutions, including the church, is a necessary beginning. This involves
an honest assessment of the congregation and the role race has played in its institutional
history, its culture and its current functioning.

...we must emphasize the crucial role the church can play in helping us to break

through our anesthesia. This is probably the church’s most important task in

dealing with racism. The process we have called ‘de-anesthetization’ is helping
people to become aware of their brokenness as a result of racism. It is taking away
the insulation factor that stands between us and feelings of pain, separation, and
imprisonment; it is offering a new wholeness to those who seek [an] alternative

way of life (Bamdt 1991 : 143).

Careful attention should be paid to how the rhetoric of color-blind racism may be
impacting the perspectives and perceptions of congregational leaders and members. This
can mask what may need to be openly confi'onted for change to occur. Ongoing dialogue
is needed so that people collectively can develop a common analysis of the nature of the
problem and of possible responses.

Long Term Commitment To begin antiracism work requires a willingness to
engage in difficult analytical work and challenging internal work to examine what has
been internalized in us regarding race. This work is not for the faint-hearted. It requires
a willingness to take personal risk, to be exposed, to experience vulnerability and at times
defeat. Nevertheless what is needed are people of influence who will say, ‘We’re in this
for the long haul, we’re committed to it.’ The participants in this study recognized early
on that to engage in this work they must make a long-term commitment and they must
maintain a certain sense of perseverance in the face of many odds that will seek to derail

the process. For people of color there is risk as honest conversation can stir memories or

re—open wounds of painful lived experiences. For whites there is also risk as privilege

170

becomes more conscious and must be faced “as it in part defines who we understand
ourselves to be. . .To look internally at privilege conferred due to education, race, sexual
orientation, gender, or institutional affiliation means a long-term commitment to engage
in deep inner work [that some] may not be prepared to do” (Chavez et. a1 2002:91). So
the first recommendation from this study is to count the cost of undertaking such an
initiative and be prepared for a long-term commitment. It is not something to be entered
into lightly without careful consideration of what will be needed in terms of commitment
and time.
Intentionality Much of the scholarly literature on multiracial or multicultural
churches describes the need for intentionality in establishing diverse congregations. In a
new study on multiracial congregations, De Young, Emerson, Yancey and Chai Kim
(2003) argue,
Churches that desire to become multiracial must prioritize becoming multiracial
and retaining their racial diversity. Such churches will have to be explicit about
their desire for a multiracial congregation. . .Intentionality is important because the
social tendencies in the United States lean toward racial separation instead of
integration... Another important aspect of intentionality is the creation of
structures in the church that allow people of different races to meet together and
get to know one another across racial groups. . .[there are] far too many
multiracial churches that lacked real conversation between racial groups on the
difficult and important topics of racism and racial alienation. Ifmultiracial
congregations are part of the answer to racism in the United States, then such
churches must intentionally create the honest dialogue that is so often missing
within other integrated social institutions, like schools and workplaces
(De Young, et. al. 2003:178).

The word ‘intentionality’ was almost a buzz word among many of the participants in this

study but there were varying degrees of understanding about its role. Some respondents

had vague ideas about the need to intentionally include people of color among their ranks

while other respondents seemed to imply that although intentionality to include peOple of

171

color is important, it is not adequate to establish a truly multiracial, multicultural
congregation. Good intentions do not automatically lead to good outcomes because it is
so easy to default to white power and privilege in the functioning of the institution. Here
a respondent describes the particular challenge of wanting to be intentional but how even

this falls short of the goal.

W—F: I don’t think there’s any one ministry that is exclusively run by whites and attended by
whites. I may be wrong about that, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head. But I’m sure on
an individual basis. . . I think from a financial standpoint maybe. The people that deal with money
right now I believe are all white. I don’t think that’s been the way — it’s not always the way it’s
been, but I think that’s where it is right now, and I think that’s a big area that is easily made a
white area. It’s really hard I think for me to answer that question, because I don’t see it all from
their perspective. Um. . .I’d love to hear what they had to say, because those are exactly the areas
that we need to go after as a team.

I: What about the programs of the church or the structures of the church? . . .are there programs
and structures in leadership or outreach or whatever that giv_epower and privilege to some and
limit power and privilege to others? Do you see that playing out within [your church], where
power and privilege is given to some more automatically and are limiting to other people?

W-F: Well it’s because of the majority. I think the majority always will default almost to giving
power and privilege to their own, and that’s where that issue of intentionality comes in, but we’re
not, we’re not a hundred percent intentional. We have — every once in a while it feels like we did a
good job trying to be inclusive. Most of the time I’m looking at it with a critical eye, but most of
the time we fail even in that area. Let me give you a situation. Right now as a chair of the worship
committee, um. . .we - I’ve been on the worship committee for about almost three years, and when
I first joined the committee there were two people of color on. One was our director of music, who
was black, and his mother actually, but she was involved in a lot of music, and then he left,
therefore she left, and we decided we needed to get a person of color on the committee again. We
asked someone who agreed and she made it to a meeting and ended up — went through a process of
building a house or, you know, got busy, at least that’s the word we got, and we haven’t had a
person of color on our committee since.

Intentionality, though a necessary and crucial first step, is not sufficient to lead to an
antiracist congregational identity because it is simply too easy for whites to default to
doing things the ‘way it has always been done’ and this gives priority and privilege to
white modes of operation and institutionalization because that is what is known tacitly.
Intentional inclusion of nonwhites in a particular church, on a particular
committee or even in a leadership position within the congregation does not necessarily

guarantee that it will lead to a multiracial, antiracist institution. Unless there is ongoing

172

analysis of how power is manifested and validated within the congregation, the status quo
will be perpetuated consciously and/or unconsciously.

People of color also spoke about the challenge and the difficulty of expecting too
much from white people’s intentionality to include nonwhites or placing too much hope

in intentionality as a basis for inclusion.

POC-F: Right. Well, I think there’s a real intentionality to include people of color, but I know - I
can say for my personal self, sometimes to be around white people is work, because I can’t be me.
I can’t — you know, I might say something and they’ll go, ‘Oh, what does that mean?’ or, ‘Why do
you say that?’ or, ‘Why do you do that?’ [nasally tones] or you can just see — you just made this
comment and they are clueless, because their growing up, their environment, their culture, all this
stuff is different than mine. But when I get with my-- my folks, you know, we can just, hoooo. ..
I: Talk in short hand.

POC-F: Exactly, exactly, and be us, and I think that’s true with any culture. So to be — you know,
to go out on Friday nights, or come over to a house for dinner, or whatever it might be, it’s work,
it’s work Now there are certain white people that in the ten years I’ve been here I’ve gotten to be
very close with and so I can just call and say, ‘Let’s go to a movie,’ and I don’t — you know,
whatever, it’s just okay. But it is work. White people want to include us, and to some degree we
want to be included, but I think that some degree comes in that. . .you know, ‘I know here, I’ve

been with white folks all day at work, when I had to go to the bank, when I had to the grocery
store — just give me a break right now.’

This response reveals the difficulty of people of color and whites working together and
understanding each other. People of color can become tired and discouraged when they
are questioned and constantly have to explain their context and situation. Intentionally
including the ‘other’ does not automatically produce a multicultural or multiracial
institution. So the second recommendation is that intentionality is critical but must be
tempered with realism about what it can accomplish. Without intentionality inclusion
may not happen but good intentions are not enough to lead to the desired result of an
antiracist congregation.

In-depth analysis of racism to change identity of institution Confronting
institutional racism requires an in-depth analysis of the institutional structures in place

that give preference to one racial group over other racial groups. Examining and

173

analyzing how certain practices, rituals and systems perpetuate and sustain racism is an
important component of being able to make institutional change.

It is critical that a common understanding of the issues and a common language
for discussing them be developed. This involves openly analyzing worldview
assumptions of what a particular group believes to be true. Ethical and moral
considerations are intricately linked to these assumptions. For example in these
congregations their conversations were informed and shaped by a biblical vision for
restored relationships and for just institutions. This foundation then led to an
examination of how the congregation specifically does or does not fulfill its vision. So
the third recommendation is a challenge to explore within the institutional setting how
power is used or misused, how racial phenomena are structured in particular settings, and
how specific practices and mechanisms (both overt and unconscious) can produce and
reproduce racial inequality.

Structured relationships for accountability The fourth recommendation
emerging fiom this study is that to create an antiracist, multicultural congregation
concerted effort must be invested in creating a process for mutual accountability between
whites and people of color. For years people of color have had to give an account to
white people for their actions and decisions. Establishing structures for accountability
wherein whites must be accountable to people of color is a radical change from the status
quo. Usually whites make decisions and action plans without specific regard for or
consideration of how these may impact people of color communities. Therefore, instead
of frmctioning as though race does not matter (i.e. trying to be color-blind), race power

and privilege is openly recognized for what it is and what it has done. This growing race-

174

cognizance can then be put to the service of dismantling institutional racism by people
working to create specific structures which provide accountability between whites and

nonwhites.

Recommendations for Research Scholars have argued that congregations have the
potential to affect grassroots change in racial attitudes and that multiracial congregations
are one answer to the problem of race in America (DeYoung, Emerson, Yancey, and Kim
2003). If this is true, further study is needed to explore how multiracial congregations
could impact not just personal attitudes but also the structural aspects of our racialized
society. Can multiracial congregations play a role in confronting our racialized society
by building within their institutions structures that promote justice, equity and
accountability? Because the church is a microcosm of the larger society, there are
implications that could be usefirl beyond this particular setting. preople gain
consciousness about institutional racism here in a common space they inhabit, within
institutions where they can actually affect change, then there is potential to dismantle it.
It is therefore a stepping stone to greater consciousness about institutional racism outside
the church. There are connections between how institutional racism operates within the
church and within the larger society. In addition, this study is not just a blue print for
church or other faith based organizations, but any organization that desires to do anti-
racism work.

How does racial isolation and segregation (i.e. whites living in all-white
neighborhoods, sending their children to all-white schools, joining all-white churches)

affect the formation of ideas and perspectives about race? Researchers need to turn an

175

 

analytical gaze on white segregation and isolation fi‘om minorities and begin
documenting how this isolation affects whites’ views, emotions, and cogrritions about
themselves and about minorities (Bonilla-Silva 2003: 184). How does white isolation
contribute to the maintaining of a racialized society?

Another theme which emerged in the data is that people of color describe in
detail the economic differences and challenges they face in their daily lives—whether
that is having to default on a mortgage, losing a job/ facing continuing unemployment, or
having no means of reliable transportation when an old car breaks down. Though it is
beyond the scope of this study the findings suggest that more research is needed to
explore the relationship between institutional racism and poverty. Martin Luther King
argued in his Nobel Laureate lecture that our survival is dependent upon our ability to
solve the problems of racial injustice, poverty and war (King 1964). Much remains to be

learned about the connections between these important issues.

Limitations of Current Study and Need for Further Study

In any study there are certain constraints imposed because of time and limited
resources. In dissertations it is customary for a single researcher to plan, execute and
eventually analyze and write about the chosen topic of study (of course with the direction
and support of a guidance committee). In this particular study of racism in
congregations, the primary researcher benefited greatly from the collaboration with the
participants in the antiracism initiative because they probed, raised questions and at times
even demanded a certain level of accountability about the progress of the research. This

strength cannot be underestimated.

176

However one of the limitations of this research is that it was conducted primarily
by a lone white researcher. The racial position of the researcher affected what was able
to be seen, understood, and interpreted. During the course of the research it became
apparent that the racial position of the researcher (in addition to worldview and
perspectival positions) provided certain windows of seeing and certain blind spots. At
times, this led the primary researcher to miss particular dynamics, or to misinterpret, or to
be confused about what the data revealed. Having peer reviewers from different racial
backgrounds helped to augment these limitations.

As other scholars have called for, more study needs to be conducted of how race
and racism are operative in historically-specific contexts. A single white researcher
studying issues of race and racialization is bound to miss important aspects of these
important issues. In the future having a team of researchers comprised of people from
different racial positions and different disciplinary backgrounds could strengthen research
being conducted about the multi-faceted aspects of our racialized society.

In this chapter we have explored the initial efforts of the antiracism teams to
confiont the anesthesia of internalized racism as well as their efforts to make structural
changes within the institution of their congregations. We have examined specific
methods utilized by the antiracism teams to dismantle racism and though these are still in
the very early stages of a long term initiative, there are some small signposts of hope.
The implications of this research for practice and for firture research have also been
discussed. The people in this study who have been a part of the congregational
antiracism initiative have deepened their level of analysis about what constitutes racism

and they have deepened their comnritrnent to one another to confront it. They articulate

177

clearly a growing recognition that they have claims on one another and that their joint

work to eradicate racism is in the interest of all people.

 

178

Chapter 8- Conclusion
Our universal solidarity is rooted in the principle that “we have inescapable claims on one another which
cannot be renounced except at the cost of our humanity "
from Peukert (1981)
Emerging Understanding
To grasp the complexity of the issues in this study took time and required patience

and perseverance for all the participants. Understanding emerged gradually and in many
ways, there is still a long way to go. Several years ago the New York Times ran a series

of extensive articles about race in America and the editor’s introduction offered a

compelling portrayal of the challenge of discussing race in contemporary America.

Their stories unfold over time in all their complexity, the patterns emerging only
gradually to the beholding of a patient onlooker who has won their confidence
and therefore the opportunity to serve as a sympathetic witness. And if this is true
in general, it is exponentially truer when the subject under discussion is race, in
particular on the white side, where, we were to discover, much seems repressed
and open conversation about race is considered unnecessary and risky, if not
taboo in decent company (Lelyveld 2001: xi).

Racism has been viewed historically by the general public as a problem that people of
color face and have to struggle with but not an issue that generally involves much
struggle for white people. This often leads whites to approach antiracism work as an
‘add-on’ or something they undertake in their spare time. “Antiracism work [i]s an act of
compassion for the ‘other,’ an optional, extra project but not one intimately and
organically linked to our own lives. Racism can, in short, be conceived as something
external to us rather than as a system that shapes our daily experiences and sense of self ’
(Frankenberg l993:6). The findings of this research suggest that for many whites racism
is something very difficult to identify within themselves and/or within the institutions of

society; discussion of race and racism is, at times, something to be avoided; and many

179

whites do not see the damage racism has done within their own lives. This research has
sought to unmask the ways in which the experience of people in color has been ignored,
sometimes rrrisrepresented or distorted in the congregations and how this subtly maintains
power relations that continue to disadvantage those who are locked out of the
mainstream. The findings also suggest that antiracism work must not be seen as an extra
project that is optional or voluntary but rather, as Frankenberg (1993) and others have
said, it is linked to our very lives.

As we have seen, the racialized social systems framework understands that pe0ple
need not intend their actions to contribute to racial division and inequality for their
actions to do so. The literature on racialization and religion suggests that our institutions
can reproduce racial inequality without people showing overt prejudice or discrimination.
This can happen just by having ordinary people follow the ‘American dream’ in everyday
actions and decisions, such as the neighborhoods we live in or the schools to which we
choose to send our children. This research has demonstrated how it can also occur in
religious institutions—particularly the local congregation. These research findings help
to increase our understanding of how faith-based organizations that usually perpetuate
racialization can become a force to make structural change to undo it. We have examined
specific methods and structures operating within congregations that have perpetuated
institutional racism and we have observed social practices within the congregations that
support and maintain a racialized society. The task of uncovering and making racism

visible in its various forms is an ongoing process of discovery.

180

Summary of Key Findings

This research contributes to the newly emerging literature on racialization and
religion by demonstrating how racial phenomena are structured in the historically-
specific settings of these three congregations. By examining the experiences of people
of color in these congregations we have seen how particular practices and institutional
structures produce racial inequality within these congregations. We have explored how
differential access to power based on race leads to a differential distribution of resources
within the congregation and how power given to certain groups eventually leads to
privileges and resources flowing to some but not others. We have observed this
differential access to power as revealed in: 1) who has influence within the congregations
and whose preferences count in the primary functions of the congregation, including
worship, programnring, and outreach; 2) how leadership is determined and who has
authority to make decisions; 3) who has access to information and how that affects the
control of resources; 4) how accountability is handled within the structures of the
congregations. These findings provide concrete examples of how institutional racism in
the contemporary setting of the local congregation perpetuates a racialized society.

Acbrowledging the breath and depth of institutional racism within these
congregations has been a difficult and demanding process for the participants in the
antiracism initiative. As we have seen, part of what makes this recognition difficult is
that for most Americans much of our understanding of race/ racialization and how it
functions within American society is unconscious and has been internalized in subtle

ways (Bonilla-Silva 1996, 2001; Emerson and Smith 2000). In order to understand

181

institutional racism it is important to grasp the role that these internalized messages about
race play in the lives of all people.

In this research we have explored how racism has been internalized in both whites
and people of color by examining the language respondents use and the rhetorical
positions they assume when describing their experience of race/racialization in their
congregations. This has revealed some of what the people believe, consciously and
unconsciously, about race and racism. Becoming aware of and conscious of the tacit
assumptions we hold is a necessary first step in the dismantling of racism. However as
we have seen, the findings of this study reveal not only the difficulty of bringing to
consciousness that which has been internalized but also the persistent cultural forces that
are subtly at work to maintain the status quo.

One of the most interesting findings emerging in this research is the stark contrast
among whites and people of color in recognizing the racialized nature of their
congregations. The participants in this study speak articulately and give examples from
their lived experience of a racial hierarchy in American culture, even within their
congregations. These strikingly different standpoints are the result of internalized
messages about racial superiority and racial inferiority loppression which form the
foundation of the racialized American society.

The findings illustrate how race is central to the lives of people of color and how
it shapes their perceptions of what is possible about the roles they play in the life of the
congregation. In contrast, whites view race as peripheral and race is not something that
is given much thought when they consider their involvement in the congregation. The

findings reveal that whites tend to frame the problem of racism in individualistic terms as

182

overt attitudes or actions that white individuals do to oppress people of color whereas
people of color frame the problem as systemic Oppression. People of color describe how
the structures or processes within the church tend to exclude them even when individual
white people attempt to be inclusive. People of color and whites have a vastly different
awareness of race power and privilege in the functioning of their congregations because
of their strikingly different standpoints. Pe0ple of color describe the subtle ways race
functions to disadvantage them and are shocked that whites cannot see the privileges they
are afforded in American society and in these congregations because they are white. By
contrast, whites often do not recognize whiteness as a race and assume race is
synonymous with persons of color. Because of this whites often have little recognition of
the role their own race plays in the privileges they receive within the congregation.
Whites often appear to speak from a position of ignorance and seeming unawareness and
people of color believe that this is disingenuous and dishonest. Because nonwhites have
no trouble producing specific examples of the racialization of the congregations, they
often express disbelief that whites cannot see the privilege they have. Strong language is
often used about how whites intentionally, deliberately and purposefirlly work to
maintain white power and privilege, which oppresses people of color. For most whites,
race privilege is invisible and they have limited understanding of how it functions to
bestow benefits on whites and disadvantages on people of color. In contrast pe0ple of
color easily identify the existence of race privilege and disbelieve that whites can not
recognize it.

This research confirms what others have documented about the very different life

experiences, opportunities, and expectations between whites and people of color

183

I

(Emerson and Smith 2000; Bonilla-Silva 2001) and how this leads to very different
perspectives about the salience of race. Whites often say or imply that people of color
are focusing on race too much, are overly sensitive about race and need to ‘move on.’ It
is not uncommon for whites to wish that people of color would ‘let go’ of the race
problem and stop living in the past. This research is consistent with what was identified
in the Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times series on race published in 2001.

It’s impossible to read these stories. . .without encountering a parade of whites

who want to believe that the time has finally come to lay this ages-old matter of

race in America to rest; that is, for blacks to get over their morbid preoccupation
with it and give it—and the rest of us—a rest. . .That blacks are oversensitive, that
race is something that needs to be purged from their consciousness, that the
problem of race is now mainly in their heads, is a leitrnotif of white conversation

. . .the first response of whites, who, browing themselves to be well meaning and

guiltless by definition, find no connection between the persistence of race as a

fundamental category in American life and their own individual lives. In simplest

terms, race and issues of race make no obvious demand on them. . .Whites can
walk away from race: it’s over when they go home. With blacks, it’s seldom so

easy (Lelyveld 2001: xiv-xv).

The findings of this research suggest that in order to confront the problem of race
in American society white people, in particular, need to become more aware of how race
does make a demand on them. Whites need to be encouraged to take stock of their racial
position and to become conscious of how their whiteness provides them with certain
advantages. None of us has a choice about which racial group we are born into but we do
have a choice about how we use the position we have and we do have a choice about
what we do with the privilege we have been given. All people stand to gain if more
attention is paid to making race more visible and to naming the power it has to shape the
life opportunities and possibilities for all of us.

Thus an important finding of this research is that whites within these

congregations need to develop a growing consciousness of how their race affects their

184

 

own daily lives as well as the life of the congregation. This is a necessary first step for
confronting the damaging effects of racism. Because the church is a microcosm of the
larger society, there are implications that could be useful beyond the particular setting of
the congregation. The findings can lead to greater consciousness about institutional
racism outside the church as well since there are connections between how racism
operates within the church and within the larger society. This study is not just a blue
print for church or other faith based organizations, but any organization that desires to do
anti-racism work. Open and honest dialogue about how internalized racism reinforces
institutional racism is very important if there is to be any hope of dismantling it.

The findings of this study can inform analysts who seek to understand
institutional racism in other organizations by providing a framework for analyzing both
institutional aspects of racism as well as internalized aspects of racism. This research
holds significance for faith-based institutions as well as for policymakers and scholars

interested in bridging race and class barriers and establishing a more equitable world.

185

 

APPENDICES

186

Appendix A
Individual Interview Guide: Church Leaders

1) Introductory Questions (about the church in general)

How did you become involved in this church? How long have you been a
member?

What is your understanding of the Anti-Racism initiative within this
congregation? PROBES: Who is involved in this initiative? How
important do you feel it is to the life of this congregation?

From your perspective, what is driving it?

Who makes most of the decisions that affect this congregation?

2) Questions about their own understanding and experience of race in America
In what ways was your own racial identity formed?
When did you become conscious of your race?
How has the church been similar to or different from other institutions in America
in terms of race?
From your perspective, how does race operate/function within your own
congregation?

3) Questions about individual racism within the church

How does a person’s race affect their involvement in this church?

How have you seen personal prejudice influence the way particular people are
treated within this church? PROBE: How have you personally seen
and/or experienced overt personal prejudice and discrimination within this
congregation because of your race?

In what ways are people of color included in this church?

In what ways are people of color excluded in this church?

4) Questions about institutional racism within the church

Have you been able to identify instances of hidden racism within the church?

How do the structures of your congregation (i.e. decision-making structures,
programs, leadership development, community outreach) give power and
privilege or limit power and privilege to people within the congregation?

In what ways are the programs aimed toward people of color in your congregation
and community controlled by white structures and white people?

In what ways do white people control the distribution of resources that reach
people of color in your congregation and community?

187

 

Appendix B

Group Interview Guide: Each Anti-Racism Team

Introductory Question
Why are you personally involved in the Anti-Racism initiative?

1) Questions about their own understanding and experience of race in America
In what ways was your own racial identity formed?
When did you become conscious of your race?
How has the church been similar to or different from other institutions in America
in terms of race?
From your perspective, how does race operate/function within your own
congregation?

2) Questions about individual racism within the church

How does a person’s race affect their involvement in this church?

How have you seen personal prejudice influence the way particular people are
treated within this church?

How have you personally seen and/or experienced overt personal prejudice and
discrimination within this congregation because of your race?

In what ways are people of color included in this church?

In what ways are people of color excluded in this church?

3) Questions about institutional racism within the church

What are some examples of hidden racism within the church? Do you see
instances of subtle racism within the church?

How do the structures of your congregation (i.e. decision-making structures,
programs, leadership development, community outreach) give power and
privilege or limit power and privilege to people within the congregation?

In what ways are the programs aimed toward people of color in your congregation
and community controlled by white structures and white people?

In what ways do white people control the distribution of resources that reach
people of color in your congregation and community?

4) Questions about hopes/expectations for the Anti-Racism teams
What are your hopes for this work being done by the Anti-Racism teams?
How are you handling differences of opinion? How are you handling conflict?
How and when will your work as an Anti-Racism team be shared with the full
congregation? What reaction do you expect?
What needs to happen next?

188

 

Appendix C

Group Interview Guide: Each Congregation-at-largc
(members not involved in ART)
1) Introductory Questions
What is your understanding of the Anti-Racism initiative within this
congregation?
Who is involved in this initiative?
From your perspective, what is driving it?
How important do you feel it is to the life of this congregation?

2) Questions about their own understanding and experience of race in America
In what ways was your own racial identity formed?
When did you become conscious of your race?
How has the church been similar to or different from other institutions in America
in terms of race?
From your perspective, how does race operate/function within your own
congregation?

3) Questions about individual racism within the church

How does a person’s race affect their involvement in this church?

How have you seen personal prejudice influence the way particular people are
treated within this church?

How have you personally seen and/or experienced overt personal prejudice and
discrimination within this congregation because of your race?

In what ways are people of color included in this church?

In what ways are people of color excluded in this church?

4) Questions about institutional racism within the church

What are some examples of hidden racism within the church? Do you see
instances of subtle racism within the church?

How do the structures of your congregation (i.e. decision-making structures,
programs, leadership development, community outreach) give power and
privilege or limit power and privilege to people within the congregation?

In what ways are the programs aimed toward people of color in your congregation
and community controlled by white structures and white people?

In what ways do white people control the distribution of resrouces that reach
people of color in your congregation and community?

5) Questions about hopes/expectations for the Anti-Racism team
What are your hopes for this work being done by the Anti-Racism team?
What concems/ conflicts do you have?
What do you expect will happen as a result of their work?
In what ways do you think your congregation may change as a result of this
work?

189

 

Appendix D

 

Individual Interview Guide: Caucus Leaders

1) Introductory Questions
Can you describe what a caucus is and how it fits into the work of the
congregational anti-racism initiative?
What is the function or purpose of the caucusing?
From your perspective, how important is caucusing for the anti-racism initiative?
In what ways has the caucusing been significant to the process of the anti-racism
initiative?

2) Questions about sense of solidarity

What issues have surfaced within your caucus that you are now trying to address?

In what ways does the caucus build a sense of shared identity among the
participants in the anti-racism initiative? In what ways has it failed to build
a sense of shared identity?

In what ways has your caucus changed your understanding of race?

In what ways are people taking mutual responsibility for each other’s well-being?

In what ways have the caucuses enabled people to build stronger relationships
with people of their same race? Cross-racially?

3) Questions about sense of agency
Are there ways that your own consciousness of race has deepened or changed?
What challenges / obstacles has your caucus faced? How are you trying to
address these challenges/ obstacles?
In what ways does caucusing develop a sense of empowerment to make change
happen?
Has the caucusing led to changes within the power structure of the congregation?

4) Concluding Questions
Are there changes you’d like to see implemented in the caucusing?
What do you anticipate for the future as far as the caucusing is concerned?
What impact do you expect will happen as a result of the caucusing?

***New Questions***

What’s been your personal experience in the caucus?

How have you felt during the caucus? Were there things that made you uncomfortable?
Why is this so hard?

190

 

Appendix E

Group Interview Guide: Anti-Racism Team Leaders

1) Introductory Questions
From your perspective, how is the Anti-racism initiative progressing?
What good things are happening? What successes have you seen?
What concerns are emerging?

2) Questions about sense of solidarity
In what ways are people building a sense of shared identity with one another?
In what ways are people taking mutual responsibility for each other’s well-being?
In what ways are people building cross-racial fiiendships?
Are there any ways racial groups are becoming less isolated, less segregated?

3) Questions about sense of agency

In what ways has the Anti-Racism initiative changed your understanding of
race? PROBE: Are there ways that your own consciousness of race has
deepened or changed?

How are members of the Anti-racism team coming to terms with power
differences within the church?

How are they developing a sense of empowerment or building a sense of agency
to make change happen?

What changes have been instituted in the power structures of the church?

What challenges/ obstacles have you faced? How are you trying to address these
challenges/ obstacles?

4) Concluding questions
What do you anticipate the response will be fi'orn the congregation when you
share the work your Anti-Racism team has been undertaking?
How will you deal with resistance and defensiveness?
What are the next steps?

***New Questions***

In what ways are people become more conscious of internalized racism?

What’s been your personal experience in the caucus?

How have you felt during the caucus? Were there things that made you uncomfortable?
Why is this so hard?

191

 

 

 

Table L—APPENDIX F

CODING TABLE

 

(RIDE:

What does it mean?

When do you use
it?

Example of
when used.

 

sass nouns (NVivo)

 

Absence of POC in
whites' experience

Whites not aware of POC
or awareness of POC
absent

When whites
referring to an
‘all-white' town or
school

‘My racial
identity was
formed within a
very white
context.’

 

 

Agency Capacity of people to When people refer to ‘I can be an
order their own world/ feeling empowered to agent: 0153113399
Power to define make change happen 3" alnY 91"en
themselves(w/o outsider or NOT ‘mmwnt’
control

CaUCUSing Purposeful meetings When people refer to ‘caucusing

with races separated

to understand how
superiority/inferiority
has been internalized

what is discovered
through caucusing

creates a
unified front,
it gives you
that unified
front'

 

Hope or optimism

Belief that positive
change is possible

When people give
examples of or
expressions of hope/
change

‘The real hope
in my opinion is
that we get back
to our roots.
This black-white
thing is not
that old, you
know_Racism as
we know it, may
be 300-400 years
old. It's
powerful but
it's not that
old. and it's a
matter of
wanting to get
back to the
Biblical roots’

IIIIIIIIIIIIII
‘When we come

into a caucus it
provides hope
because I’m not
by myself'

 

Conflict

Examples of conflict or
disagreement

When people refer to
conflicts or
disagreements

‘_we question
the
denominationmwe
question their
stick-to-it-
tivenessmthere's
no self-
regulating'

 

 

Connections

 

A resource that
helps/supports people
when they face
difficulties

 

When someone describes
how other people gave
tangible and/or
emotional support when
they were in need

 

‘At [Cambridge]
we have a whole
group of folks
thatlget
together all the
time. We're a
care group unto
ourselves'

 

192

 

 

 

 

 

Disappointment/anger

Dashed hopes or dreams

When someone refers
to their
expectations not
being met

‘I realized then
that there was
system in place
that continued
to oppress you
regardless of
how educated you
became. You
still—you may do
a little bit
better, but as
far as shooting
for the moon and
falling into the
stars, that just
wasn't going to
happen, and I
burnt a lot of
energy fighting
a
systemnfighting
a losing battle.
And I asked
several times my
supervisor,
'What am I
dealing with
here?’ I had
not a clue.’

 

Economic Issues

Examples of
economic/class issues

When referring to
economic differences
between POC and
whites

‘every time one
of my people go
to one of those
meetings they
have to get out
of 6 or 7 hours
of their jobsemy
people suffer'

 

Exclusion of POC

Examples of how POC are
excluded/not treated

equally

When referring to
how POC are not
included/devalued

‘In a way
they're excluded
because of the
power structure
even though we
have a black
minister, the
power structure
is still
predominantly
white'

 

 

Gender Issues

 

Power struggles and
limitations caused by
gender

 

When referring to
different/unequal
treatment because of
gender

 

‘Wo, not women
elders and I
don't even think
women deacons
are allowed yet.
I'm not sure
about that, but
I'm saying
that's gender-
wise, but
racially, no,
you can be any
position in this
church. It's not
like, ‘Well, I
can't go into
that because I'm
a black person.’
You can go in
anything you
want.‘

 

193

 

 

Good intentions

Something intended for
good but doesn't
necessarily lead to
positive outcomes

When referring to
intentions not
matching results

‘I think of our
attempts to be
part of racially
mixed congreg.
and how
intentions don't
necessarily mean

 

it happens.’
Hidden racism Examples of racism When referring to ‘There's a
unknown or people's comments whole lot of
unacknowledged by about less obvious diflcrillination
whites or covert signs of but 1‘"

racism

subtleait's more
of a
discounting,
ignoring,
avoiding, not
thinking.’

III-IIIIIIIIOI
‘A white person

is going to have
more influence
on the
Consistory than
a black person,
and to me that's
hidden racism.’

 

Inclusion of POC Examples of how POC are When referring to ‘P00 are
included/ treated POC being included included in
equally congreg...we have

POC who are

elders, who are
very respected
choir and
worship leaders'

 

 

 

Individualism Autonomy of individuals When referring to ‘No one is
as part of the American people watching out “11111119 to unify
dream for their own ‘0 address
interests and not 3:121:33:
part of a collective is that racism
strnxmgle is not seen, so
now instead of
being in this
struggle
together we're
in the struggle
as individuals'
Intentional Purposeful action to When people refer to ‘I think the
include POC in purposeful action or church V”
congregation and/or decision-making to mteztiifig
leadership within include POC “mourn:- the last
40 years there's
been a certain
intentionality
to do racial
reconciliation'
Multicultural Reveals evidence of When referring to ‘ [Cambridge] has

 

more than one culture
contributing

 

settings where
different
racial/ethnic groups
are contributing

 

a long history
of trying to
become
multicultural
and antiracist
.we use the term
‘diversity'

 

 

194

 

 

 

Overt prejudice/
discrimination

Examples of obvious
discrimination/
personal prejudice

When referring to
specific situations
where POC are being
discriminated

‘No black person
is going to lead
my kideI'm not
going to have a
black person
teaching my kid'

 

Partnership

Mutual
reciprocity/respect
between 2 or more
entities

When referring to
reciprocal working
relationships

‘I donflzthink
any one of our
churches want to
be the only one
doing this so in
a sense there's
safety in
numbers'

 

POC feel invisible

Examples of POC feeling
invisible

When referring to
POC feeling
overlooked, ignored
or discounted

‘POC tell me
they are hidden
in the
congregation and
they feel like
they are not
sought after for
a voice.’

 

Race consciousness

Examples of people's
consciousness of the
effects of race

When referring to
how race affects a
person's involvement
in a congregation

‘lracel impacts
their
involvement
significantly in
ways I'm still
discovering and
learningerace
impacts---100§'

IIIIIIIOIIIIII
‘I really don't

think whether
they're white or
black it really
affects their
involvement in
the church'

 

Racial
Identity/Formation

Experiences which have
contributed to the
formation of one's
racial identity

When referring to
how a person's
racial identity was
formed

‘Wh wemelmmsed
in and we were
the white people
bussed into this
district and we
were not very
welcome.’

 

 

Solidarity

 

Deeply shared identity;
commitment to others

 

When referring to
people connecting
with] being committed
to each other

 

‘How do we build
trust to cross
the race
differences?..
by establishing
a friendshipeit
takes time.’

 

195

 

 

 

Structural Racism

Examples of systemic or
institutional racism

When referring to
unequal treatment that
is built into the way
things are done
institutionally or
systemically

‘After I went
thru that
training I
realized what I
was dealing
withmI was
dealing with a
system-a system
of privilegemI
thought that if
I put forth the
effort and I
was qualified to
do the job, then
I would be
promoted based
on my merits,
not based on my
color. And I
realized then
that there was a
system in place
that continued
to oppress you
regardless of
how educated you
became'

 

Two Worlds

Examples of POC and
whites living in
separate worlds

When referring to
people not
understanding the
life experiences of
different racial
groups

‘I realized how
difficult it was
to get to know a
POC a that they
did not really
want to get to
know memmy world
was so separate“
just 2 worlds
and it never
dawned on me to
try to mesh
those worlds.’

 

Visible AND
Invisible

Examples of POC being
simultaneously visible
(for certain reasons)
and invisible (for
other reasons)

“under a microscope and
invisible at the same
time'

(Sharp contrast is key)

When referring to
examples of POC being
invited to participate
because color is
needed but there voice
and perspective is not
valued.

‘There are some
of us that
prefer not to be
part of the
status quo
structure, so if
you're going to
invite me to be
part of a
leadership deal
but basically
all I do is go
to meetings and
I don't have
much of a voice
there, then why
should I be part
of that?‘

 

Whiteness

 

White privilege and
power functions in
society almost without
whites recognition

 

When referring to
what whiteness
means(most whites
are unconscious of
white privilege/
power)

 

‘I don't know
what being white
meansmit means
I'm just another
person and that
doesn't mean I‘m
better or worse
than anyone
else.’

 

 

196

 

 

 

 

 

 

rm nouns (NVivo)

 

Analysis/Training

General comments about
the AR training or the
impact of the analysis

When people
referring to the
training or the
analysis in general
terms

‘Part of the
analysis is to
understand who
makes the
decisions.‘

 

Power 1
(Oppression of
POC)

Examples of racism’s
power to hurt, control,
or disempower POC

When specific
examples are given
of how POC have been
oppressed

‘It's assumed
that POC will
just come along
with any
decision that is
made and usually
made by people
who are white.‘

IIIIIIIIIIIIII
‘They were

willing to take
my knowledge for
the betterment
of the company,
but they were
not willing to
promote me into
a supervisory
position.they
chose to promote
a white woman
that I had
trained that did
not have a high
school diploma'

 

Power 2
(White Privilege
and Control)

Examples of white
privilege and power
(conscious/unconscious)
which maintains the
status quo

When referring to
white privilege
which supports and
maintains systemic
racism

‘we don't think
about race when
we are making
decision and so”
we perpetuate a
white
leadership.‘

 

 

Power 3
(Internalization)

 

Examples of how whites
have internalized
racial superiority and
POC have internalized
racial inferiority

 

When referring to
how a person's race
has affected their
sense of their place
in the world

 

‘White people's
ego is stroked
all the time
whereas it's
just the
opposite for a
POC. So you have
internal
dynamics. ‘Yes,
I can’ the white
person says.
‘I'm never going
to make it' the
black person
says within
himself."

 

197

 

 

 

Cultural Racism

Collective
socialization to impose
a way of life on
oppressed groups which
can discount/discredit
POC cultures

When referring to
behaviors that have
been accepted (status
quo)as people try to
find acceptance

‘nquietness of
white peOple vs.
loud, more
vibrant
personalities of
the POC'

 

Action/Change Examples of action to When referring to ‘thie last
bring change or not getting the training really
congregations ready to helped
change OR keeping me.[understandl

things status quo

our job is to
help get them
ready.to change'

 

White response
to training

Examples of white
response to
training/analysis

When referring to
comments made in
support of or in
resistance to the
training (including
caucusing or POC

‘We've got a few
people who just
seem not to get
it& who are
going to resist
applying the

 

gatherings) analysis in
terms of our
church'
Definition of Ideas which contribute When people give their ‘Racism at
Racism own understanding of [Vance], it

to people’s definition
of racism

what racism is

cannot exist
because we're
fifty-fifty...'

 

Decision-Making

Who/what has the power
to influence or make
decisions in

.congregation

When referring to how
decisions are made

‘look at our
council.I think
about an even
amount of people
of color and
white people.all
decisions are
equally listened
to and when
we're making our
decision I don't
think there's
really any
racism holding
our decisions
down'

 

Pastor/Staff

Comments describing the
role of pastor or other
church staff

When referring to
role of pastor/staff
in making decisions

‘weluwe alflaek
minister and
[he] does have a
very powerful
influence on
what's done and
what's not done
but the power
structure was
predominantly
white'

 

 

Key committees
(including
church
councils here)

 

Examples of comittees
who have power to impact/
influence the congreg.

 

When referring to
committees who have
decision-making power

 

‘worship
committee ought
to at least
inform the
elders the kind
of conversation
that we're
having-’

 

198

 

 

 

 

 

Consciousness-
Raising

Comments on role
consciousness-raising
plays in decision-
making

When referring to
comments about
educating people about
racism

i.eRlWlWBIR: you
canft eliminate racism
by education

‘[POC) have
faced a lot of
racism in their
lives and, you
know, at the
very least
they're learning
about it and how
it's
internalized
into this nation
and stuff, and
so at least for,
you know,
educational
purposes, and
how can you now
fight it, and
how can you do
things
differently,
that's really
important to
this

conggggation'

 

 

Driving Pbrces

What is driving or
motivating this
initiative to become AR

When referring to
more general
comments about what
is driving this
initiative

‘The American
dream of
equality.
Equality and
status in the
CRC and the
united States,
that's what
drives the
initiative. It's
the great
American dream
that everybody
wants.’

 

Biblical
Perspective

Belief in particular
Biblical mandate(s) act
as a driving force

When people refer to
the Bible to explain
their own perspective

‘.the main
motivation for
the people
involved in the
team. They
believe that a
Biblical call,
challenges
what's driving
it'

III-IIIIIIIIII
‘There's no

Biblical mandate
to address
racism so it's
easy to put it
aside.’

 

Key people

Particular people hold
power to motivate and
drive this initiative

When referring to
comments about
particular people who
drive the Anti-racism
initiative

‘We have a
couple people
who keep
prodding and
Apushing us'

 

 

Denomination

 

Denomination has been
driving the anti-racism
initiative

 

When referring to
comments about the
role of the
denomination in the
AR initiative
(positive or
negative)

 

‘I think we're
really rather
independent of
the denomination
a this point.‘

 

199

 

 

External

The motivation for
involvement in the AR
initiative is external
(to self) or lacks a
personal connection

When people give
reasons that are not
personal (moral
imperative or
Biblical call)

‘what is
driving this
initiative? The
Bible.’ ‘-try to
understand what
the analysis was
they wanted us
to embrace and
they wanted us
to bring to our
congregation.’

 

 

Internal

 

The motivation for
involvement is internal
and encompasses a
personal connection

 

When people give
personal/internally—
driven reasons for
involvement

 

‘I think what's
driving it here
is our own sense
of wanting to
improve in the
area of racial
reconciliation.‘

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 1994. Observational techniques. In Handbook of
qualitative research, 377-92. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

 

Ammerrnan, Nancy Tatom. 1997. Congregations and community. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Rutgers University Press.

Baez, Benjamin. 2002. Confidentiality in qualitative research: Reflections on secrets,
power and agency. Qualitative Research 2 (l):35-58.

Bane, M. J., B. Coffin and R. Thiemann. 2000. Who will provide? The changing role of
religion in American social welfare. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.

Bamdt, Joseph. 1991. Dismantling racism: The continuing challenge to white America.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.

Bawden, R. 1997. The community challenge: The learning response. Invited plenary
paper presented at the 29th Annual International Meeting of the Community
Development Society, 27-30 August, Athens, Georgia.

Becker, Gary S. 1957. The economics of discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Bell, Derrick. 1992. Faces at the bottom of the well. New York: Basic Books.

Bellah, Robert N. and Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven
M. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American
life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bernard, HR. 1995. Research methods in Anthropology. Walnut Creek, Calif: AltaMira
Press.

Binder, Amy. 1993. Constructing racial rhetoric: Media depictions of harm in heavy
metal and rap music. American Sociological Review 58:753—67.

Blauner, Bob. 1994. Talking past each other: Black and white languages of race. In Race
and ethnic conflict: Contending views on prejudice, discrimination, and ethno-
violence, edited by F. Pincus and H. Ehrlich, 18-28. Boulder, Colo: Westvicw
Press.

Blauner, Bob. 1972. Racial oppression in America. New York: Harper and Row.

202

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1996. Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation.
American Sociological Review 62 (June: 465-80).

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era.
Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the
persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, Md: Rowman and
Littlefield.

Bratt, James D. 2001. A draft summary of the anti-racism small group discussions:
Working document #1 of the Christian Reformed Church anti-racism initiative.
Unpublished paper. Grand Rapids, Mich: Christian Reformed Church.

Bratt, James D. 2002. Commentary on the history of systemic racism in North America,
with special reference to the Christian Reformed Church Unpublished paper.
Grand Rapids, Mich: Christian Reformed Church.

Brown, L. and R. Tandon. 1983. Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action
research and participatory research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 19:
277-94.

Carmichael, Stokely and Charles V. Hamilton. 1967. Black power: The politics of
liberation in America. New York: Random House.

Carpenter, Joel. 2000. How to become anti-racist: Are white Christians ready to take the
blindfolds off? The Banner, 28 February.

Carter, Anthony J. 2003. On being black and reformed: A new perspective on the
African-American Christian experience. Phillipsburg, N. J .: P&R Publishing
Company.

Chataway, C. 1997. An examination of the constraints on mutual inquiry in a
participatory action research project. Journal of Social Issues 4:747 -66.

Chavez, Vivian, and Bonnie Duran, Quinton E. Baker, Magdalena M. Avila, Nina
Wallerstein. 2002. The dance of race and privilege in community based
participatory research. In Community based participatory research for health,
edited by Meredith Minkler and Nina Wallerstein, 81-97. San Francisco: J ossey—
Bass.

Chesler, Mark. 1976. Contemporary sociological theories of racism. In Towards the

elimination of racism, edited by Phyllis A. Katz, 21-71. New York: Pergamon
Press.

203

Christian Reformed Church in North America. 1996. God 's diverse and unified family.
Grand Rapids, Mich: CRCNA.

Christians, Clifford G. 2000. Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In Handbook of
qualitative research. 2d ed. Edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 133-55.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Clawson, Rosalee A. and John A. Clark. 2003. The attitudinal structure of African
American women party activists: The impact of race, gender, and religion.
Political Research Quarterly 56 (2): 211-21.

Collins, Patricia H. 1990. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the
politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.

Conde-Frazier, Elizabeth, S. Steve Kang and Gary A. Parrett. 2004. A Many Colored
Kingdom: Multicultural Dynamics for Spiritual Formation. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic.

Cornell, Stephen, and Douglas Hartmann. 1998. Ethnicin and race: Making identities in
a changing world. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press.

Cox, Oliver C. 1948. Caste, class and race: A study in social dynamics. New York:
Doubleday.

Cnaan, Ram A. 1999. A newer deal: Social work and religion in partnership. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Creswell, J.W. 1994. Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Crossroads Ministry. 2002. Understanding and analyzing systemic racism. Chicago:
Crossroads Ministry.

Crotty, Michael.1998. The Foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in
the research process. London: Sage.

Darden, Joe T., Hill, Richard Child, Thomas, June, and Thomas, Richard. 1987. Detroit:
Race and uneven development. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Delgado, R., ed. 1995. Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

Denzin, Norman K. 1970. The research act. Chicago: Aldine.

Denzin, Norman K. 1989. Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage.

204

 

DeYoung, Curtiss Paul, Michael O. Emerson, George Yancey and Karen Chai Kim.
2003. United by faith: The multiracial congregation as an answer to the problem
of race. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dias, Robette Ann, Emily Drew, and William Gardiner. 2003. Racial identity caucusing:
A Strategy for Building Anti-Racism Collectives. Crossroads Ministry.

http://www.crossroadsminisQorgZCaucusInfosxml

Emerson, Michael O. 1998. Why individual racial reconciliation alone cannot end racial
strife. Christian Scholar ’s Review 28:58-70.

 

Emerson, Michael O. and Christian Smith. 2000. Divided by faith: Evangelical religion
and the problem of race in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

F als-Borda, O. 1991. Some basic ingredients. In Action and knowledge: Breaking the
monopoly with participatory action research. New York: The Apex Press.

Feagin, Joe R. 2003. Bridging the race chasm. Grand Rapids Press, 2 March.

Feagin, Joe R. and Melvin P. Sikes. 1994. Living with racism: The black middle class
experience. Boston: Beacon Press.

Feagin, Joe R. and Clairece Booher F eagin. 1978. Discrimination American style:
Institutional racism and sexism. Englewood Cliffs, N. J .: Prentice-Hall.

Foley, Michael W., John D. McCarthy, and Mark Chaves. 2001. Social capital, religious
institutions, and poor communities. In Social capital and poor communities,
edited by Saegcrt, Thompson and Warren, 215-245. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.

Fontana, Andrea and James H. Frey. 2000. The interview: From structured questions to
negotiated text. In Handbook of qualitative research. 2d ed. Edited by N. Denzin
and Y. Lincoh1, 645-72. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White women, race matters: The social construction of
whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Franklin, Raymond S. 1991. Shadows of race and class. Minneapolis: University of
Minneapolis Press.

Glaser, B. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, Calif: Sociology Press.

205

 

 

 

Glaser, B. and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, N. Y:
Aldine.

Glynn, Patrick. 1998. Racial reconciliation: Can religion work where politics has failed?
American Behavioral Scientist 41 (6):834-41.

Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce. Diversity initiatives and programs. Online:
ht_tp://www.grandranids.org/diversity/echrcfm 10 February 2005.

Guba, E. G. and Y.S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, Calif:
Sage.

Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Work. In
Handbook of qualitative research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 105-
117. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. .

Guijt, I. and Kaul Shah, M. 1998. Waking up to power, conflict and process. In The myth
of community: Gender issues in participatory development, edited by I. Guijt and
M. Kaul Shah, 1-23. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Hall, B. 1981. Participatory research, popular knowledge and power: A personal
reflection. Convergencel4z6-16.

Hall, B. 1992. From margins to center? The development and purpose of participatory
research. The American Sociologist 23:15-28.

Helfand, Judy and Laurie Lippin. 2002. Understanding whiteness/unraveling racism:
tools for the journey. Stamford, Conn: Thomson.

Heron, J. and P. Reason. 1997. A participatory inquiry paradigm Qualitative Inquiry 3:
274-94.

Hilfiker, David, MD. 2002. Urban injustice: How ghettos happen. New York: Seven
Stories Press.

Hurst, Charles E. 1998. Social inequality: Forms, causes, and consequences. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Isom, Denise. 2004. Personal communication with author. 14 September.
J anesick, Valerie J. 2000. The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets,
improvisations, and crystallization. In Handbook of qualitative research. 2d ed.

Edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 379-399. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Johnson, Allan G. 2001. Privilege, power and diflerence. Mountain View, Calif:
Mayfreld Publishing Company.

206

Jones, Camara Phyllis. 2000. Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener’s
tale. American Journal of Public Health 90 (8): 1212-215.

Jones, Camara Phyllis. 2001. “Race,” racism, and the practice of epidemiology. American
Journal of Epidemiology 154 (4):299-304.

Katz, Phyllis A. 1976. Racism and social science: Towards a new commitment. In
Towards the elimination of racism, edited by Phyllis A. Katz, 3-18. New York:
Pergamon Press, Inc.

 

Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggart. 2000. Participatory action research. In Handbook of . A
qualitative research. 2d ed. Edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 567-605.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Kincheloe, J. L. and P. McLaren. 2000. Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative
Research. In Handbook of qualitative research, 2d ed. Edited by N. K. Denzin
and Y. S. Lincoln, 279-313. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

King, Martin Luther. 1964. The Quest for Peace and Justice. In Nobel Lectures: Peace
1951-1970. Edited by Frederick W. Haberman. Amsterdam: Elscvier Publishing
Company. http://nobelprize.orypewlameatw 1 964/king-lecture.html

Krieger, N., D.R. Williams, and S. Zierler. 1999. ‘Whiting out’ white privilege will not
advance the study of how racism harms health. American Journal of Public
Health 5:582-785.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 2000. Racialized discourse and ethnic epistemologies. In
Handbook of qualitative research. 2d ed. Edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln,
257-77. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

 

Lasch-Quinn, Elisabeth. 2001. Race experts: How racial etiquette, sensitivity training,
and New Age therapy hijacked the Civil Rights revolution. New York: W. W.
Norton and Company.

Lather, Patti. 1994. Critical Inquiry in Qualitative Research Feminist and Poststructural
Perspectives: Science “After Truth.” In Exploring Collaborative Research in
Primary Care. Edited by B. Crabtree, W. Miller, R. Addison, V. Gilchrist and A.
Kuzel, 103-114. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

LeCompte, Margaret D. and Jean J. Schensul. 1999. Analyzing and interpreting
ethnographic data. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Lelyveld, Joseph, ed. 2001. How race is lived in America: Pulling together, pulling
apart. New York: Time Books/Henry Holt and Company.

207

Lincoln, Yvonna S. 1995. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive
research. Qualitative Inquiry 1: 275-89.

Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon G. Guba. 2000. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,
and emerging confluences. In Handbook of qualitative research, 2d ed. Edited by
N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 163-188. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Loury, Glenn C. 2002. The anatomy of racial inequality. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.

Maguire, P. 1987. Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, Mass:
University of Massachusetts.

 

Massey, D. and N. Denton. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the
underclass. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Maxwell, Joseph A. 1996. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Maxwell, Joseph A. 2002. Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. In The
Qualitative Researcher 's Companion. Edited by A. Michael Huberman and
Matthew B. Miles, 37-64. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Meyer, Stephen Grant. 2000. As long as they don ’t move next door: Segregation and
racial conflict in American neighborhoods. Lanham, Md: Rowman and
Littlefield.

 

McIntosh, Peggy. 1998. White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In
Revisioning family therapy: Race, culture and gender in clinical practice, edited
by M. McGoldrick, 147-152. New York: Guilford Press.

Merriam, Sharan B. and Associates. 2002. Qualitative research in practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. 2d ed.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Miles, Robert. 1993. Racism after ‘Race Relations ’. New York and London: Routledge.

Murray, Charles. 1994. Losing ground: American social policy, 1950-1980. New York:
Basic Books.

Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1995. Black wealth/white wealth: A new
perspective on racial inequality. New York: Routledge.

208

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial formation in the United States: From
the I960s to the I980s. 2d ed. New York: Routledge.

Perkins, John M. 1976. Let justice roll down: John Perkins tells his own story. Glendale,
Calif: Regal Books.

Perkins, John and Thomas Tarrants, III. 1994. He 's my brother: F ormer racial foes ofler
strategy for reconciliation. Grand Rapids: Chosen Books.

Perkins, Spencer and C. Rice. 1993. More than equals: Racial healing for the sake of the
gospel. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Perkins, Spencer and Chris Rice. 1995. Reconciliation: Loving God and loving people. In
Restoring at-risk communities, edited by John M. Perkins, 107-137. Grand
Rapids: Baker.

Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1958. Personality and socio-cultural factors in intergroup attitudes:
A cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2: 29-42.

Pettigrew Thomas. F. 1959. Regional differences in anti-Negro prejudice. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 59:28-36.

Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1993. How events shape theoretical frames: A personal statement.
In A history of race relations research: F irst-generation recollections, edited by
John H. Stanfield, 159-78. Newbury Park: Sage.

Peukert, H. 1981. Universal solidarity as the goal of ethics. Media Development 28
(4): 10-12.

Plantinga, Cornelius. 2002. Engaging God’s world: A reformed vision of faith, learning,
and living. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Richardson, Laurel. 1994. Writing: A method of inquiry. In Handbook of qualitative
research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 516-29. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage.

Riger, Stephanie. 2001. Working together: Challenges in collaborative research. In
Collaborative research: University and community Partnership. Washington,
DC: American Public Health Association.

Rubin, Herbert J. and Irene S. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Salley, Columbus and Ronald Behm. 1970. Your God is too white. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press.

209

Schaefer, Richard T. 1990. Racial and ethnic groups. 4th ed. Glenview, Ill: Scott
Foresman/Little Brown Higher Education.

Schensul, Stephen L., Jean J. Schensul, and Margaret D. LeCompte. 1999. Exploratory or
open-ended observation. In Essential ethnographic methods, 91-120. Walnut
Creek: Alta Mira Press.

Schmid, A. Allan. 2004. Conflict and c00peration: Institutional and behavioral
economics. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishing.

Schmid, A. Allan. 1987. Property, power, & public choice. An inquiry into law and
economics. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Sharp, Douglas R. 2004. Evangelicals, racism, and the limits of social science research.
Christian Scholar ’s Review 33 (2):237-61 .

Smidt, Corwin, ed. 2003. Religion as social capital: Producing the common good. Waco,
Tex: Baylor University Press.

Sniderman, Paul M. and Michael G. Hagen. 1985. Race and inequality: A study in
American values. Chatham, N. J .: Chatham House Publishers.

Sowell, Thomas. 1981. Ethnic America. New York: Basic Books.

Stanfield, John H., ed. 1993. A history of race relations research: F irst-generation
recollections. Newbury Park: Sage.

Steele, Shelby. 1990. The content of our character: A new vision of race in America.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Steele, Shelby. 1998. A dream deferred: The second betrayal of black fi'eedom in
America. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Stringer, E. 1999. Principles of community-based action research. In Action Research. 2d
ed., 17-42. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sugrue, Thomas J. 1996. The origins of the urban crisis: Race and inequality in postwar
Detroit. Princeton, N. J .: Princeton University Press.

Summit on Racism. Online: ht_tp://www.gr_aceoffice.org[g°isummithistoryhtml.
10 February 2005.

Taylor, Steven J. and Robert Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to qualitative research methods.
3d ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Terry, Robert W. 1988. For whites only. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

210

Tisdell, Elizabeth J. 2002. Researching one’s passions: The perils and possibilities. In
Qualitative research in practice, 89-92. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

VanderMeulen, Peter. 2000. Becoming anti-racist, multi-cultural agencies and
institutions of the Christian Reformed Church. Unpublished paper. Grand Rapids,
Mich: Christian Reformed Church.

Vora, Erika and Jay A. Vora. 2002. Undoing racism in America: Help from a black
church. Journal of Black Studies 32 (4):389-404.

Warren, Mark R., J. Phillip Thompson, and Susan Saegert. 2001. The role of social
capital in combating poverty. In Social capital and poor communities, edited by
Saegert, Thompson and Warren, 1-28. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Washington, Raleigh and Glen Kehrein. 1993. Breaking down walls: A model for
reconciliation in an age of racial strife. Chicago: Moody Press.

West, Comel. 2001. Race matters. Boston: Beacon Press.

Winslow, Ron. 1992. Study finds Blacks get fewer bypasses. Wall Street Journal, 18
March.

Wolcott, HF. 1990. On seeking—and rejecting—validity in qualitative research. In
Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. Edited by E.W. Eisner
and A. Peshkin, 121-152. New York: Teachers College Press.

Woodrick Institute for the Study of Racism and Diversity. Online:
http://www.woodrickin_stitute.org/programsshtml 10 February 2005.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1992. Rediscovering the sacred: Perspectives on religion in
contemporary society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. 2d ed. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage.

211

 

 

lllllllllllllllll‘lll