- 7,364
- 28,987
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
The history of racism in our society is one of constant adaptation. There's no question that what is socially permissible today is different from the Reconstruction Era, but my point is that the concept of the "dog whistle" is not, itself, a new development.
Racism has long been veiled in such a way as to soothe the conscience of those who benefit from and perpetuate it. It's not a matter of racial animus, Trump will tell you, it's about "public safety." It's not a matter of racial animus, Teddy Roosevelt would tell you, it's about "preserving the races." It's not a matter of racial animus, the Southern slaveholder would tell you, "it's for their own good."
I suppose the difference in interpretation could vary depending on what you consider the utility of the dog whistle. Who, in other words, is the coded language supposed to fool? Does anyone truly believe that using phrases like "law and order" functions like spelling out a word or phrase that you don't want a child or domestic pet to overhear? In other words, does "dog whistle racism" enable Whites to formulate or announce racist plans in broad daylight in a way that is somehow supposed to be inaudible or incomprehensible to people of color? Hardly.
I would argue that the dog whistle serves less to conceal racism from its targets than it does to conceal racism from the racist. In other words, coded language serves to format racism in a way that is broadly acceptable to society at large.
As Thomas Ross wrote in his outstanding essay, Innocence and Affirmative Action,
Dog whistles are, in a sense, the lies that racists must internalize in order to live with themselves, in the way that jailers, soldiers, and slaughterhouse workers must somehow normalize, justify, and inure themselves to unconscionable brutality.
Functionally, there's little difference between "law and order" on the macro level and "it was him or me" for the likes of Darren Wilson.
In this way, the ostensibly "race neutral" dog whistle serves as both a call to action and a lullaby.
To the overt racist, the dog whistle may seem like racism served with a wink and a nod. To the "subconscious" racist, it is both the invocation of prejudice, and the liberation of that prejudice from the forbidden realm of overt racism.
As Ross explains,
The whole of society has been conditioned by the racist stereotypes embedded into our national culture.
This speaks to your point:
We can't afford to underestimate just how tightly stereotypes have intermingled with national/cultural ideals.
This is, without question, true of the myth of the egalitarian meritocracy, the accompanying Horatio Alger/bootstrap myth, and in countless other narratives of virtue.
Just take, for example, Paul Ryan's response to Donald Trump's boasts of sexual assault: "women are to be championed and revered, not objectified." That statement, bereft of shame or self-awareness, itself objectifies women. Yet this is considered "chivalry."
Mass incarceration is presented as virtuous. Slavery was presented as benevolent. Heterosexism is framed as protecting "family values." Sexism is paternalistically framed as "protective."
We are, in some ways, menaced by a nation of self-styled heroes out to save themselves from the "other", and to save those of us so "othered" from ourselves. (Sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity, respectively.)
The actual dog whistle itself is the tip of the iceberg. It's the underlying culture that must be treated and reformed. The first step is to question and subject the culture and its assumptions to a critical lens.
And that is work that, I hope, can be in some small way furthered by constructive inter-group dialog.
We all have different experiences and perspectives to share, and there's much to gain through their reconciliation.
Last edited:
