Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely than whites to describe themselves as “anti-racist,” and only the “very liberal” are more likely than other political orientations to identify with the label

Who Identifies as Anti-Racist? Racial Identity, Color-Blindness, and Generic Liberalism. Samuel L. Perry, Kenneth E. Frantz, Joshua B. Grubbs. Socius, November 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211052945

Abstract: Although decades old, the terms “anti-racism/antiracism” and “anti-racist/antiracist” have grown in usage by scholars, authors, and activists to convey the necessity of active opposition to racial injustice. But as the terms have become more mainstream, researchers have yet to examine the social and ideological correlates of actually describing oneself as “anti-racist.” Drawing on nationally representative survey data fielded at the height of national interest in “antiracist/anti-racist” language, the authors find that Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely than whites to describe themselves as “anti-racist,” and only the “very liberal” are more likely than other political orientations to identify with the label. Considering ideological correlates, progressive racial ideology is the strongest predictor of identifying as “anti-racist.” However, the second strongest correlate is describing oneself as “color-blind.” Analyses of quadratic terms suggests that this correlation is curvilinear for nonwhites but more linear for whites. Although originally conveying more radical and subversive ideals, those currently most likely to self-describe as “anti-racist” are white progressives with what we call “generically liberal” racial views.

Keywords: antiracist, antiracism, whiteness, color-blindness, liberals

Discussion and Conclusions

Although the past decade has witnessed a traceable explosion of interest in “anti-racism/antiracism” or “anti-racist/antiracist” language coinciding with the proliferation of anti-racist books, campaigns, and curricula, social scientists had yet to examine the social and ideological correlates and antecedents of actually identifying with the label “anti-racist.” Using nationally representative data fielded at the height of interest in anti-racist/anti-racism terms, we find that whites are the group most likely to identify with the label, as opposed to Blacks or Hispanics. Moreover, only the “very liberal” were more likely than other Americans to identify with the term. But although progressive racial views are strongly associated with self-describing as “anti-racist,” among the strongest predictors was also identifying as “‘colorblind’ when it comes to race.” In fact, color-blindness was an even stronger predictor of identifying as “anti-racist” than willingness to confront a racist friend or a rejection of old-fashioned racism. When we analyzed nonlinearity with quadratic terms, we found that the association between color-blindness and identifying as “anti-racist” was curvilinear for nonwhites (those who strongly reject or strongly affirm color-blindness are more likely to self-describe as “anti-racist”) yet still largely linear and positive for whites. Our findings thus paint a picture of progressive whites (not minorities) self-describing as “anti-racist,” particularly those characterized by a more “generic liberalism” on racial issues (i.e., a liberalism that affirms any racial attitudes that seem liberal, rather than explicitly race critical or radical).

Findings from this study extend our understanding of the current racial landscape in the United States in several key ways. First, they fill an important gap in showing that as “anti-racism” and “anti-racist” language has proliferated in the past decade (see Figures 1 and 2), there is evidence that white Americans (the targets of anti-racist books, campaigns, and curricula) are indeed the ones heeding the call. However, there is less evidence that such efforts are either influencing critically engaged whites or attracting them. Rather the whites who self-describe as “anti-racist” may be more likely to self-identify as “very liberal,” but their liberalism is of a more generic variety. They support progressive racial policies (on surveys), oppose old-fashioned racism, and would confront a friend who told a racist joke. Yet they are also strongly more likely than other Americans to identify with color-blindness, suggesting that such Americans, characterized by what we call “generic liberalism,” simply affirm any views that sound racially progressive. Although color-blindness is most often contrasted with anti-racist ideals and praxis as antagonists (e.g., Bonilla-Silva 2018; Mueller 2020), white Americans who affirm an “anti-racist” identity may simply see color-blindness as an ideal they wish to affirm rather than a construct that critical race or whiteness scholars identify as problematic and insufficient to address racial injustice.

Another key finding that became apparent when trends were plotted out is that Americans on the whole—even those who rejected progressive racial views, would not confront a racist friend, or held old-fashioned racist views—would describe themselves as “anti-racist.” Perhaps even more than the connection with color-blindness, this suggests that most Americans, even those who hold racist views, want to reject identification with overt racism or explicit racists. Thus, the term “anti-racist” may ultimately lend itself to being co-opted by whites who simply wish to maintain a view of themselves as decent people. To be sure, it may be possible that respondents were reading “anti-racist” as simply someone who is against racism. (In that case, who would not be against racists or racism in general?) Yet the fact that Black and Hispanic respondents, who would almost certainly be against racists or racism, were less likely than whites to describe themselves as “anti-racist” suggests that the terminology did in fact resonate in ways that we would predict if respondents were somewhat aware of how the language has been deployed in popular culture, books, campaigns, and curricula.

Unlike Croll’s (2007) analysis, which demonstrated that white racial identity was associated with more conservative and more progressive racial attitudes in a U-shaped fashion, we found that nonwhites who either strongly rejected or strongly affirmed color-blind identity were more likely to identify as “anti-racist.” This pattern suggests that the survey is capturing different ways of relating to “anti-racist” identity for nonwhites. There are some who fully embrace the more race-critical and subversive implications of anti-racist identity and thus reject color-blindness as insufficient and antithetical to racial justice. And there are others who (like whites) affirm color-blindness as they also affirm anti-racist identity, reflecting a more generically liberal interpretation of the latter. Future studies should further explore this dynamic with large enough sample sizes of nonwhites to sufficiently disaggregate racial categories to discern different patterns for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and perhaps other nonwhite racial groups as well.

On the topic of future studies, several limitations of this study are worth addressing to chart a path for future research. First, as acknowledged earlier, concepts such as “anti-racist” and “color-blind” can be vague depending on each respondent’s level of familiarity with thinking and literature on racial issues. Future studies would ideally incorporate qualitative interview data that would allow research participants to unpack such concepts in their own words and analyze patterns of meaning both within and across racial and ethnic groups.

Second, though the survey placed “anti-racist” in quotation marks to indicate an identity or label rather than a general disposition (someone who dislikes racists), and authors still frequently use the hyphenated term “anti-racist” (e.g., Jewell 2020; Oluo 2019), Figure 1 shows that the term that has grown the most in usage over the past decade is “antiracist” without the hyphen. This may more aptly convey the idea of a formal identity (see Bonilla-Silva 2018 or Kendi 2019). Future surveys on this topic should thus use the unhyphenated version to test for a difference.

Third, the survey did not ask about respondents’ level of exposure to anti-racist books, campaigns, or curricula where they would learn how the language of “anti-racism” or “color-blindness” is often used in such circles. Although we did take educational attainment into account, future studies would ideally include more pointed measures inquiring about Americans’ relative exposure to race literature.

Finally, one potential limitation has to do with the unique timing of the survey, just before a presidential election and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Racial rhetoric and attitudes were already intensified following George Floyd’s murder in May 2020 (Williams 2021), and these tensions could have potentially been exacerbated or uniquely shaped because of a racially polarizing election and collective anxiety over the pandemic, which studies have also shown was interpreted through a racial lens (Perry 2022, Perry et al. 2021). Thus, future studies in years ahead may uncover somewhat different effects simply by the timing.

In this same vein, it is worth speculating about the future of “anti-racist/antiracist” language and identity as the growth of such writing, campaigns, and curricula continues. On one hand, studies have shown that there has been some white backlash to anti-racist movements such as Black Lives Matter since the summer of 2020 (Williams 2021), suggesting that the initial momentum that compelled liberal whites to embrace anti-racist ideals and praxis may have either faded in response to Joe Biden’s election or because even liberal whites began to feel uncomfortable with the slogans of “abolish the police” or “reparations” (Crabtree 2020; Johnson 2020; Pew Research Center 2020). Thus, data that might track identification with anti-racism/antiracism over time might find a peak in 2020, followed by an ebb like we document in Figure 2. Another possibility is that the term “anti-racist/antiracist” simply takes on the color-blind liberalism of white Americans and essentially becomes the same as being “nonracist” (Bonilla-Silva 2018:15). Ultimately, data tracking such trends are necessary to map identification with these terms onto current events over time.