Retreat from Civility

The 60s with so much promise was soon dwarfed as the racial state reemerged with a vengeance. The retreat from civility associated with extreme right wing politics pushed the nation sharply to the right. Ultra conservative candidates such as Barry Goldwater articulated the need to return to the racial state and helped articulate a modern version of the white identity politics. Driving both processes was what has since been termed Angry White Male Syndrome (AWMS) (Kimmel 2014).

It's been around for some time, you know, Angry White Men. But some may think it a new phenomenon. Angry White Male Syndrome (AWMS) has been part and parcel to the United States almost as long as there has been a United States. It has manifested itself most force-ably in many episodes of violence and mayhem targeting "others". These episodic situations typically are preceded by significant challenges to white, male identity, privilege, status and power. In the past these episodes have been cleverly masked within several foils such as Nation Building, White Man's Burden, and Family Values. In the process we almost annihilated the Indigenous people of this continent, fostered slavery and colonialism resulting in the devastation, genocide and exploitation, and the justification for sexual violence, homophobia, and gendered discrimination. AWMS has also given rise to various movements, euphemistically called wars such as the war on poverty, war on drugs and more recently the war on Terror. Strangely, these so called wars have actually targeted women, minorities, and Muslims, respectively, and have done little to actually decrease poverty, the availability of illegal drugs, and the rising tide of terrorism. What they have accomplished is the preservation of a system that protects fragile white, male egos, status, power, privileges and status.

Politically, AWMS has given rise to a number of quite effective campaigns where candidates have been able to manipulate and capitalize upon these pint up frustrations. George Wallace, during the early 60s articulated their views when he declared "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this path, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". This was what Ronald Reagan described as a "silent majority" which was neither silent nor a majority. This 'silent majority' represented the disenfranchised, core of Americans who rejected civil rights and women rights, and were staunchly pro-American defenders of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism. In 1992, Ross Perot and Patrick Buchanan tried to ride this wave of white male paranoia into the House. Newt Gingrich and then George Bush would also tap into this fear, or what Jude Davies calls a "crises of representation" where at the core one finds discontent by perceptions of being displaced by "others". The current manifestation of AWMS is being played out in the current political climate. 

Donald Trump was pushed into office as many white, particularly white males, believed that their America was quickly disappearing. For many, Trump's pledge to make America great again' is likened to the world of Archie Bunker where we return not only to a more conservative but also a vastly whitened America (Reiner 2017). For those who remember, the 1990s our nation seemed consumed with paramilitary-style "Patriots". Further, Trump’s rhetoric, policies, and late night 'tweets' have fueled a drastic rise in hate groups, radical right activities, and attacks. For two straight years, radical right groups, encouraged by the candidacy of Trump, have risen. Nationwide, over 100 groups targeting Muslims have come into being since 2015 alone. Hate violence have spiked, where nearly 1100 bias attacks have been recorded by the SPLS. Among these, 37% make direct reference to either campaign slogans, statements or President-elect Trumps infamous sexual assault remarks (Chen 2017). Clearly, something more than talk must be done. We must have a strategic plan where we can began to re-frame the discourse.

 So What Is to Be Done--Diversity Must Become a Reality

At the core of truth and justice is empathy equity, and community. People, groups, communities, even nations responding to fear, pain, and insecurity often set aside their high morals and revert to defensive of offensive postures that targets and attacks others. Thus principal is replaced with practicality and these become normative destructive cycles of these spaces, we fail to recognize that they are interrelated, intersectional, and irreducible to its various parts. In addition, the trend is to paint these conversations in terms of victims and victimizers. We name and shame, we raise up some standard as the Holy Grail, and condemn all those who fall short of perfection. In addition, as often is the case, white straight males tend to be isolated, castigated, and cast as the ultimate (implicitly or explicitly) victimizers. Alternatively, we relegate all others to the status as victims, rarely seeing how they too may be both agents and enablers. Such conversations rarely produce anything more than a mild sense of accomplishment, while all patties retreat to their respective safe zones-until another incident happens when we have to have yet another discussion regarding diversity.

Living, working, and interacting within various institutional settings, where memberships are constantly fluctuating, means that such we are constantly being challenged to incorporate increasingly diverse sets of identities. This by definition means that we will constantly have various types of episodes that are a natural part of change. Rather than seeing these as natural, we typically respond as if they are adherent aberrations that must be condemned, sanctioned, con-trolled and immediately remedied. I would argue that these are logical and tied to the dynamic nature of our institutions. Therefore, our response is to view these as teachable moments. As teachable moments, they become not something to stigmatize, but to embrace and recognize that it is part of who we all are. How should we proceed?

Our responses across this country, in our communities, in our universities and our schools has been to have more discussions, more lectures, more evidence in the hope that as more people become aware of the problems, equipped with even more sophisticated knowledge we will develop the will to fix the problems, fix the system, or fix the individuals. Such hope has been in vain. Moreover, if, as attributed to Einstein continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, how our efforts might for these last decades be characterized. If  we  want to change the outcomes, we must change how we do things. I would suggest that getting past the hurt, we must replace retributive with restorative justice.