In Them vs. Us, Who’s Us?
The Greek physician Hippocrates wrote that Scythians, the nomadic people whom the Greeks considered the “barbarians” of their time, all looked alike. The Greeks, by contrast, were heterogenous in stature and shape.
Hippocrates certainly wasn’t the first person to caricaturize and homogenize other peoples. While adjectives and epithets have varied, there is a constant in all such characterizations: The “civilized” pride themselves on their diversity; the “barbarians” are invariably uniform.
Similar judgments are made today and have crept into coverage of this year’s City Council races. The media routinely refer to black, Latino and Asian “communities,” but seldom, if ever, to a “white community.” One understandable reason for sorting millions of nonwhite Americans into various ethnic communities is a need to make these groups more intelligible, but the result often creates awkward portrayals. Last week, a Los Angeles TV news anchor reported that “the Chinese American community” hosted a banquet for visiting Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji. There are 400,000 Chinese Americans in Southern California. What about those Chinese Americans who protested Zhu’s arrival? Are they members of the Chinese American community?
To ask such questions is to highlight the habit of viewing nonwhite groups as centralized organizations rather than as collections of individuals with diverse opinions and outlooks. Typing ethnic groups not only distorts our understanding of them, it also diminishes the importance of individual voters and precinct-level political activity. Obsession with the idea of minority unity, furthermore, undermines the goal of cultivating more political discussion to bring about greater civic involvement.
When writing about the politics of nonwhites, journalists often pick up the phone and ask a minority “spokesperson” or “leader” what his or her people think about any given issue. The same journalist would never call, say, Gov. Gray Davis to ask him what white people think about Social Security. The assumption is that Anglos live as individuals, while minorities are mere extensions of a collective mentality.
In addition to oversimplifying complex populations, identifying nonwhites as cohesive communities, rather than as individuals, can promote racist and ethnocentric ideologies. Ethnocentric ideologues or activists eagerly welcome opportunities to speak for a single-minded, 30-million-strong “Latino community.” When African American activists tell a black conservative that he is not black enough, they are declaring there is only one true way to think or act as an African American. Conversely, the very idea of homogenous minorities is indispensable to racists who want to paint ethnic groups with broad brush strokes.
Notions of sameness among nonwhite groups facilitate brokerage politics, in which elite “race leaders” pursue the purportedly unified interests of their people as if they were corporate CEOs. This type of politics is “ultimately a form of high-level negotiation,” contends New School for Social Research political scientist Adolph L. Reed Jr. The black leader gets to sit down with the Latino leader who gets to sit down with the government representative.
But brokerage politics’ preoccupation with ethnic chieftains marginalizes the minorities themselves. Average citizens either don’t have a voice or apparently aren’t worth sounding out. For example, in coverage of the race to succeed Councilman Richard Alatorre, in the 14th Councilmanic District, the endorsements of “prominent ethnic leaders” have played a starring role. Sure, the sheer number of candidates in that race--14--makes the endorsement angle appealing. But in the contest in the heavily black 10th District, there are far fewer contenders, yet endorsements also are a big part of that story, including that of former Mayor Tom Bradley.
In the 7th District race to succeed Richard Alarcon, the media have even resurrected the ancient rivalry between Alatorre and L.A. County Supervisor Gloria Molina to explain their opposing endorsements. Because of the assumption that all Latinos are of like mind, it is considered “news” when two Latino officials don’t get along. By contrast, Anglo officials are expected to disagree with each other, and in campaigns involving Anglo candidates, endorsements regularly take a back-seat to contribution totals.
Coverage of minority electoral races are more likely to include images of back-room deals than of New Hampshire-style straw polls. Put another way, Anglo politicians are expected to follow the will of their voters, while Latino voters are thought to serve the will of their politicians. Assuming that Latinos behave more like a hierarchical organization than a diverse ethnic group, some political scientists still envision a “Latino rank and file” in lock-step behind their leaders. The media, wittingly or unwittingly, play into this brokerage model of politics by pursuing identifiable ethnic figureheads to help negotiate what in reality is as complex and complicated a voter base as the white electorate. In the end, no one is listening to opinions of the average voter.
Of course, many minority members gladly take part in the “take-me-to-your-leader” style of minority politics. How many times have you heard a writer or a politician tell the world what his or her ethnic “community” thinks or feels? A generation ago, when African Americans had yet to secure the right to vote, it was morally incumbent upon the black middle-class elite to speak for those who were blocked from the polls. But today, this top-down approach squashes, rather than promotes, fruitful political activity. Brokerage-style politics need groups to posture as united fronts behind common leaders. But encouraging correct, communal thinking is the antithesis of the kind of debate that breeds new ideas and political change. Social scientists consistently have found that “group thought” boosts the strength of military regimes, while a healthy democracy thrives on vibrant debate among individuals.
To prehistoric man, identity and behavior were one and the same. But in postmodern America, ethnicity is only one layer of many identities that people juggle. In the vast majority of cases, the ethnicities that bind are fluid, sometimes even tenuous. Ethnicity and race shape people’s worldview, but they do not strip them of their individuality.
Community more accurately refers to geography, not ethnicity or race. At any of this season’s candidate forums, L.A. voters of all ethnicities were most attentive when the candidates spoke of improving trash pickup, street lighting or traffic signs. These voters don’t live in the larger Latino, black or Asian “communities” but in neighborhoods with their own special problems and needs. For all the recent talk of the importance of the ethnic vote, nonwhites are still viewed much the way the ancient Greeks saw the Scythians. Only when the diversity of ethnic minorities is factored into the electoral calculus will nonwhites have truly arrived as political forces.*