As a social scientist, I find it instructive to look at the mistaken assessments written by thoughtful people in past eras.
I thought of this after reading this passage from 1977 written by sociologist Christopher Lasch:
The functional significance of racism in Western society is that it once provided ideological support for colonialism and for backward labor systems based on slavery or peonage. These forms of exploitation rested on the direct, unconcealed appropriation of surplus value by the master class, which justified its domination on the grounds that the lower orders, disqualified for self-government by virtue of racial inferiority or lowly birth, needed and benefited from their masters’ protection. Racism and paternalism were two sides of the same coin, the “white man’s burden.”
Capitalism has gradually substituted the free market for direct forms of domination. Within advanced countries, it has converted the serf or slave into a free worker. It has also revolutionized colonial relations. Instead of imposing military rule on their colonies, industrial nations now govern through client states, ostensibly sovereign, which keep order in their stead. Such changes have made both racist ideology and the ideology of martial conquest, appropriate to an earlier age of empire-building, increasingly anachronistic.
Setting aside some of the now-unfashionable socialist jargon (“appropriation of surplus value”), it’s striking how wrong he was. Racist ideology and the ideology of martial conquest aren’t what they were in 1861, sure, but they haven’t gone away, nor do they seem increasingly anachronistic. Racist ideology is no longer being used to justify slavery (except sometimes retroactively, from various neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis); it’s being used to justify economic and social inequality. As for the ideology of martial conquest, we’re seeing that now in Ukraine and in talk about Mexico and Canada, also Taiwan, Gaza, and probably some other places that aren’t coming to mind right now.
Lasch was hardly unique in this error. Indeed, it would be fair to say he deserves some credit for promoting an “end of history” thesis over a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the perspective of 1977, it seemed to make sense to think of racism and martial conquest as on the way out.
Regarding racism: in the context of U.S. politics, racism was alive and well in 1977 (in the school busing issue in Boston, for example), but arguably the racism was more of a vehicle for political realignment than anything else, a “card” for liberal and conservative politicians to play while they could, but a declining aspect of American culture, something that was only held onto by various left-behind and disappearing groups. Something we can’t say now, given the centrality of race to influential political analyses and movements on the left and the right.
Regarding martial conquest: the U.S. had just lost in Vietnam, China was soon to give up trying to boss Vietnam around, Vietnam had its hands more than full with Cambodia, the Soviets were soon to fail in their invasion of Afghanistan. Martial conquest was indeed looking like a dead end, not just in the large scale of mutual assured destruction but pretty much anywhere in the world. The loser Argentine generals were soon to fail to conquer the tiny Falkland Islands.
Up until the early 2000s, it could well be argued that racism and martial conquest were going away, so instead of criticizing Lasch for not forecasting the post-2010 world, we should perhaps credit him for anticipating a trend that would continue for more than twenty years after he wrote his article.
That said, I have one concern.
I can accept Lasch’s statement about the “the ideology of martial conquest, appropriate to an earlier age of empire-building,” being “increasingly anachronistic.” He was wrong, but the geopolitics of the 1960s-1990s seemed to pretty strongly support this “end of history” take.
Regarding the racism, though, I don’t think Lasch was fully thinking through the issue. As long as there is political inequality, and as long as there is economic inequality, there will be a desire for explanations and justifications of these patterns, and racism is an always-available source of such explanations. So, even setting aside current disputes about race in science and politics, I have the feeling that racism is here to stay.
Again, the point of this is not to say, Hey, this dude from 50 years ago got things wrong!, but rather to reflect up on the perspectives that people had back then. Our own takes are time-bound, and one way to understand this is to consider time-bound takes from generally sensible people from earlier times.
You have left out an important development. Racism is disappearing through government fiat. History is being rewritten so that the official record – and what people will be increasingly exposed to – will deny that racism still exists, and to some extent denies that it ever existed. One way to improve predictions such as Lasch’s is to change the facts to fit the theory. Much like painting the target on the barn after you shoot the arrow.
Dale:
This reminds me of what Columbia and other universities have been doing over the years, which is to try to frame the university as a happy-talk world, denying the existence of serious internal disagreement. Mutual respect sounds great, but in a large organization there will be people who don’t respect each other.
Plantation capitalism is alive and well
How could one have seriously claimed that racism is necessarily connected with colonialism or slavery? How was, for example, 19th or even 20th century German or French antisemitism connected to these? I don’t think this claim made any sense in 1977.
In a similar vein, to think that racism would disappear because it was no longer needed to “provide ideological support for colonialism and for backward labor systems based on slavery or peonage” flies in the face of the fact that racism is ubiquitous in the non-Western world.
Even if he was correct that was the “functional significance in Western societies,” the fact it has different “functions” elsewhere would suggest it might continue in the West, simply with a different function.
It was nonsense then, let alone now.
The function of racism everywhere is to justify inequality. It does not just have this function in the west.
Anon:
As I wrote in my above post, “as long as there is political inequality, and as long as there is economic inequality, there will be a desire for explanations and justifications of these patterns, and racism is an always-available source of such explanations.”
To reiterate Peter’s comment, but in response to you Anonymous, how was the function of anti-Semitism (i.e. racism) a justification for inequality?
In 19th and pre-WW2 20th century Germany and France, there were wealthy Jews and very poor Jews. Wealth isn’t always correlated with other disparities. Other metrics of relative inequality are occupational prestige (academic vs schoolteacher; physician vs grain merchant) and military rank (Prussian Jews fought for the Kaiser in WW1; Captain Dreyfuss in France). Jews were subject to racism, regardless of relative inequality or lack thereof, compared to non-Jews in 19th to 20th century Germany and France.
Elie,
Jews were generally moneylenders in medieval Europe (they were usually banned from being anything else). When a king didn’t want to pay his debts, he killed all of the moneylenders and their families (a pogrom). This became the stereotype which lasted into the 20th century and is still with us today in the form of “Jews are rich bankers”.
Even when the powerful were not in debt, pogroms were also incited by them to scapegoat Jews instead of solving the real problems (usually economic).
To make an analogy, there are rich black people and poor black people today. But racism towards them appeared as a justification for slavery, and it is still with us. Black people are also often stereotyped as poor, even when they’re rich.
Racism is always intimately connected with class issues and inequality.
> Jews were generally moneylenders in medieval Europe
Surely Jews were generally something else, it seems unlikely that there were a hundred thousands money lenders in Europe.
Peter:
I agree with you. Here’s what I think was happening with the above-linked article: In 1977, racism seemed like a declining force in American politics and life. During the previous decades, various institutions (sports, the army, schools, Hollywood, etc.) had become racially integrated, racial minorities now had full voting rights, and there was a general sense that any racism that remained was vestigial. So it was natural to look to American history, where racism has indeed been closely tied to slavery, and conclude that with the residue of the slave system finally ending, racism had no function in our society. From our current perspective, he was wrong–but what makes it interesting is that certain aspects of his argument seem understandable from the perspective of 1977.
Good point, but I think racism is strongly connected to slavery in the USA.
This is also grossly ahistorical, even in the case of, for example, the British Empire. To a large extent, capital ran far ahead of state or other social interests in building what became the empire. And in cases where there certainly was a sense of “racial” or cultural superiority at play from the beginning, as for example in the early colonization of Britain’s neighbor, Ireland, I suspect that this doesn’t quite fit the author’s conception of what racism is or how it works.
Racism comes after inequality, not before. Colonization came first due to the profit motive, racism after. That’s why he said “it justifies inequality.”
No it doesn’t. Not necessarily. Unless you define either racism very narrowly or inequality very broadly.
I don’t think you even quoted the really interesting stuff in that link. Like what even:
> What has been said about the obsolescence of racism and militarism applies also to the ideology of competitive achievement. Many critics of contemporary sport—contrary to the impression given by Foner and Naison—argue that undue emphasis on competition reflects the predatory individualism and achievement-orientation of capitalist society, which uses athletics to inculcate a ruthless desire to succeed.
I think recent times indicate this is a very wrong take given “the last man” part of “the end of history”: when society becomes perfectly boring, some bored people will rage against it.
This was mentioned, “school busing issue in Boston” so I thought I would make two separate comments”
1. “busing” is different from “bussing” which is also a correctly spelled word. Was that the real fear of those on Right back then?
2. A California congressman at the height (or depth) of the school busing issue, pointed out that too bad that America no longer had trains, because no one would be opposed to training kids.
My granddaughters are bused daily to and from their bilingual school in Minneapolis and it is as normal as it is heartwarming. Hard to imagine what the fuss was all about back then.
First, let me say that racism is a pernicious problem of humanity, and the USA is not exempt. My recollection of the busing controversy in Boston is that a large contribution to the anger was a feeling by working class whites that their children were being made into shock troops in this battle while richer, more educated liberals were in fact living in suburbs that were immune to being bused. We liberals berated working class people for being racist while making their kids get on the bus.
Getting bused to a bilingual school in Minneapolis is seen as different as a school in inner city Roxbury.
My family of Jewish immigrants was treated wonderfully by working class Irish people, I’m grateful for the many kindnesses they showed my Mom especially who found English difficult.
Oncodoc and I share some things and split on others. For example, as my name (but not his pseudonym) may or may not suggest, I too come from a family of Jewish immigrants, most of whom, however, were very prejudiced against Blacks. Although Jews were always welcome in St. Paul, Minneapolis was noted for antisemitism until HHH became mayor. Since then, Minneapolis just reelected its Jewish mayor and St. Paul just reelected its Black mayor. The respective ethnicity of the politicians seem to have played no part at all in the reelections. The main issue in St. Paul had to do with the scheduling of garbage trucks and the collection of garbage. According to my daughter in Minneapolis, that issue had been resolved there a long time ago.
> My granddaughters are bused daily to and from their bilingual school in Minneapolis and it is as normal as it is heartwarming. Hard to imagine what the fuss was all about back then.
Imagine that a judge decides that your grandaughters have now to be bused to some other school – possibly a monolingual one.
Actually there is some fuss about this kind of thing in Minneapolis nowadays as well: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/in-minneapolis-schools-white-families-are-asked-to-help-do-the-integrating/
Heather Wulfsberg, who is white, had intended to send her daughter, Isabella, 14, to Southwest High, a racially diverse but majority white public school that is a 10-minute bus ride from their home.
[…] So Wulfsberg appealed the reassignment to North High, citing her son’s attendance at Southwest High, and her daughter’s interest in Japanese. (North High offers one language, Spanish.)
She was also concerned about transportation. Isabella’s commute could take up to 55 minutes. She would also have to walk from the bus stop to school through an area where frequent gun shots are a problem.
But Wulfsberg, who described herself as a lifelong Democrat, felt there was little room to explore her concerns without being misinterpreted or offending other families. Conversations on a Facebook page for parents turned tense.
The family decided to send Isabella to a suburban school with top academic ratings. Students are about 80% white and about 4% economically disadvantaged.
Ultimately, Wulfsberg deemed her daughter’s high school years too high stakes to experiment with. “My motivation,” she said, “is to get the best education I can for my kid and have her launch into the world as successfully as she can.”
Anonymous wrote
“Imagine that a judge decides that your grandaughters [sic]have now to be bused to some other school – possibly a monolingual one.”
As per usual, whoever Anonymous is/are, he/she/it/them has it wrong. The insinuation is that some outside, malevolent government entity is secretly thwarting the family’s desire–sort of reminds me of the famous rejoinder of the era we are looking at: “How would you like it if your daughter…”
Of course, there is no “judge” or police department requiring “forced busing”–a famous phrase of yore.
There would be disappointment, but fortunately, my family lives in the Twin Cities.
Maybe I misinterpreted your remark. “Hard to imagine what the fuss [a show of anger, worry, or excitement that is unnecessary or greater than the situation deserves] was all about back then” sounded as if there was nothing to complain about. (There was nothing secret about that, of course.)
I’ve lived long enough to realize that what seemed like the inevitable drifts of a decade or two can be reversed by counter-drifts. Lasch was generalizing from his own experience, but, unless you’ve lived through a lot, it’s difficult to have a historical perspective on cultural and political trends. Specifically with regard to capitalism, it’s been, what?, three decades or so that there’s been a literature on varieties of capitalism — it comes in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, even now an apparent hybrid of state and private ownership in China. For me, the lesson is to be concrete and specific in analysis and not rely on broad generalizations from abstract theory, supposedly buttressed by recent trends.
Excellent observations!
Fukuyama wrote his “End of History” in the early or mid 1990s, so I guess Lasch was somewhat prescient for writing this in 1977. Derrida (no, I am NOT a fan!) criticized Fukuyama for over-relying on broad generalizations in his book, similar to what you said in a more general context in your last sentence. (Derrida had many more criticisms of Fukuyama’s and Lasch’s shared view of the benevolence of an enduring western liberal world order but that’s what critical theory people do: criticize… I guess?)
“the ideology of martial conquest aren’t what they were in 1861, sure, but they haven’t gone away, nor do they seem increasingly anachronistic”
Wars for territorial gain at all time historical record low. There is only one going on currently (in Ukraine) and it strikes everyone except Putin as absurdly anachronistic.
Did you omit Israel’s “war” for territorial gain in Gaza and the West Bank on purpose or by accident?
Fabio Rojas wrote measuring the post-racist society: the eclipse of racist words in 2013, and the post-racist society: a hypothesis vindicated in 2020. Scott Sumner continued to argue that Fukuyama’s End of History was correct, and Richard Hanania declared 2022 to be “The Year of Fukuyama” for confirming his thesis.
My comment should have been a reply to the top-level post, but I didn’t click the CANCEL REPLY button, and instead just tried refreshing the page.
Anon:
Indeed. Also, Lasch was taking a U.S. perspective, and the U.S. is currently supporting both Israel and Russia in their wars for territorial gain, along with talking about territorial gains in Canada and Greenland. Whether or not such things are anachronistic, they’re an important part of international politics.
The territorial gains of Israel since 1967, if any, are a few square kilometers in Southern Lebanon.
uhhh, West Bank settlements? Gaza? I guess it’s like the Russians in Ukraine–they’re just liberators.
The US has been giving aid to Ukraine and putting sanctions on Russia, so I wouldn’t agree on “supporting”.
Wonks:
There’s an article in the newspaper just today on how the U.S. is supporting Russia in its war for territorial gain and another article on how the U.S. is supporting Israel in its war for territorial gain.
Does that article claim that Russia has received more aid dollars than Ukraine?
Yes I left out Israel on purpose. I understand that in your faculty meetings or student union protests that accusing Israel of genocidal imperialism (or whatever your beef is) is de rigueur, but out here in real America it instantly outs you as lunatic fringe and safely ignored.
I stand by the claim that territorial acquisition is a vanishingly small part of the human condition compared to what it was all points in human history, and indeed to what it was within living memory of the 20th century. Lasch was right. Which makes the rest of the arguments in this post inadvertently hilarious.
“real America?”
I guess I need to update my map. Real America must be just north of the Gulf of America.
“I was wrong in this case but the overall point I made still stands” is a nice parallel to the many posts about how people act when caught doing erroneous (or more appropriate to this case, fraudulent) research.
Decrying a genocide and the use of starvation as a weapon of war is now fringe lunacy? Says more about what you consider the “real world” than anything.
Karim:
To put it another way, whether or not “territorial acquisition is a vanishingly small part of the human condition compared to what it was all points in human history,” it doesn’t seem so “vanishingly small” to the people whose territory is being violently acquired.
“…in the context of U.S. politics, racism was alive and well in 1977 (in school busing issue in Boston, for example), but arguably the racism was more of a vehicle for political realignment than anything else”
One strong counterexample is that the 70s were when mass incarceration of especially black men began ramping up. See here for some numbers: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-mass-incarceration
A key argument in Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow is how the appearance/performance of race-blindness was important for disguising dramatic racial discrepancies in policing and sentencing.
Nick:
Good point. There was racism at all levels of society in the 1970s, including among elite policymakers. I do think there was something going on with the perception of racism, that back then it was perceived as vestigial, as a last gasp among losers, whereas, now, there’s lots of open racism among the people who might be considered the modern political and economic elite.