Only because you claim I did something silly that I feel compelled to indulge in this semantic splitting of hairs. You are right that Prejudice+Power is technically shorthand, but it is shorthand for an abridged definition such as “racism is dominance in society, business or politics by one group over another based on a preconceived notion of ethnic or cultural superiority”. Thus, the shorthand Prejudice+Power is indeed an abridged definition. I obviously don’t have a problem with this definition, and I know it is not yours but one that is widely used by those who study and fight racism.

Please allow me to make my point again, which I probably nuanced too finely in the original post. I wasn’t “calling” you “out” because the definition Prejudice+Power is abridged (or as you retort, shorthand) and thus presumably full of fluff (i.e., not a “LOT of stuff behind it”). I was simply pointing out the futility of the main argument in your post, that the dictionary definition is inadequate primarily because it is abridged. Clearly, a definition can be abridged and more than adequate, as is “Prejudice+Power”.

To repeat what I stated in my original comment, the dictionary definition is lacking because it does not consider how the word racism is used by those for whom it has the most relevance.

If it appears I am disagreeing with you, it is only in the sense that I think you should actually take an angrier tack given such a blatant example of institutionalized ignorance. In other words, how can racism be adequately addressed by society if the dictionary can’t even get the definition straight?

The reason I bring up Affirmative Action is that it is a focal point, consciously or otherwise, for many white people’s (and some others, such as Asian families with kids going to college) concept and understanding of, not to mention personal experience with, racism. Their definition is much closer to the dictionary definition than to the Prejudice+Power definition.

In my opinion, the gulf between the two definitions is itself one of the fundamental problems when dealing with racism. Misuse of the word racism can effectively bury its relevance to most people, such as the spectacle last year involving the “racist” Reverend Wright. Never mind white conservatives, many black commentators were tripping all over themselves to be the first to dismiss Rev. Wright’s controversial comments as fringe lunacy and yes, even “racist”. This is very similar to the dynamic that is at work in the Affirmative Action debate.

Second, why are you bringing up Affirmative Action?

A better argument against the use of dictionaries as rhetorical tools is that dictionaries define words without context or bias and therefore they must necessarily be an inferior and secondary source compared to the actual and contextual usage of words in the real world. As a result, an argument based on dictionary definitions is an inferior argument at best. It is bereft of any basis in reality and can only be applied to abstractions. To properly explore what a word means and does not mean, one should look to the actual, contextual, widespread (and scholarly, especially when the word is complex, such as racism or irony) usage of the word by the people who actually use it. Otherwise one is merely relying on the experience of those who wrote the dictionary. And as brilliant as dictionary writers might be, they are neither all-knowing nor always right. Not only that, they probably don’t get out all that much.

Accordingly, I searched the websites of the NAACP, ADL, and Asian-Nation for the contextual usage of the word racism and came up with the following pages:

http://www.naacp.org/youth/college/end_campus_racism/index.htm

“Over the past few years, students of color have reported a dramatic increase in acts of racial discrimination, intolerance, hate crimes and insensitivity amongst different cultures at institutions of higher education. Hateful and racially insensitive incidents have occurred on some of the most prestigious campuses in the country – Clemson University, Tarleton State University, Texas A&M University, University of Texas at Austin, University of Connecticut and Johns Hopkins University just to name a few. Often, these acts can be attributed to many factors; including a lack of knowledge of what constitutes acts of racial intolerance and hate and a lack of appropriate consequences brought forth from university officials.”

Note that although the power component of racism is not directly mentioned, the statement does strongly infer it with the phrase “a lack of appropriate consequences brought forth from university officials”, which clearly speaks to acquiescence or at least indifference from those in a position of authority.

Many other references to racism on the NAACP site either discuss it in the context of a position of authority or as a historically institutionalized practice, strongly supporting the claim that a proper definition of racism, as far as the NAACP is concerned, should include the “power” component.

http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/racism.asp

According to the ADL: “Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.”

Furthermore: “It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another — or the belief that another person is less than human — because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. It has influenced wars, slavery, the formation of nations, and legal codes.”

The last sentence of the second definition very clearly states that racism involves a position of power and privilege. Without these, how else can one make war, enslave others, form nations or write legal codes? In addition, the page goes on to discuss racism in the context of power and privilege such as when it mentions “cultural control”.

Also instructive is the phrasing of this somewhat controversial statement: “At the same time, some public figures in the American Black community have championed the supremacy of their own race and the inferiority of whites – using nearly the identical language of white racists.” Note that the word “racist” is not applied to “some public figures in the American Black community”.

Thus, the ADL seems to agree with the NAACP: racism involves a “power” component.

http://www.asian-nation.org/racism.shtml

The page begins with: “As the section on Asian American history discussed, numerous acts of discrimination against Chinese immigrants culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. For the first and so far only time in American history, an entire ethnic group was singled out and forbidden to step foot on American soil. Although this was not the first such anti-Asian incident, it symbolizes the legacy of racism directed against our community.”

The page then goes on to discuss the case of the baseball bat beating death of Vincent Chin in 1982 by two whites who subsequently received probation in state court and were acquitted in federal court. In context, this page written from an Asian American viewpoint is crystal clear: racism involves not only hatred but power as well.

Based on the above, most dictionaries appear to provide an insufficient definition of racism given the contextual use of the word by the three groups arguably most affected by it. Furthermore, the poor dictionary definition does not appear to be the result of it being abridged but rather because the definition is not being written from the perspective of those who actually use the word most often, and perhaps more importantly, those for whom it is the most meaningful and relevant. To them, racism very much appears to involve Prejudice + Power.

Perhaps the Prejudice + Power definition does not make sense to many whites (and ironically to some Asians as well) because they view Affirmative Action as “two wrongs do not make a right”. While it may be appropriate to dismiss such feelings at the GROUP OR SOCIETAL LEVEL on the basis that they co-opt the real suffering of some by substituting the imaginary and non-existent suffering of others, such a dismissive position is untenable at the INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. The fact is that sometimes the most qualified individuals are passed over for specific positions under an Affirmative Action program on the sole basis of race, and to them as individuals this might (dare I say understandably?) seem unfair. Yet clearly the intent of Affirmative Action at the society level is not racism — in fact the intent is the exact opposite, it is anti-racism.

My purpose in going down this landmine-strewn path is not to argue for or against Affirmative Action but to perhaps elicit some thinking about possible definitional improvements that could be made to address the nuances of this group/societal vs. individual aspect as it applies to Affirmative Action and other similar situations. To me at least, this appears to be the crux of the disagreement over the meaning of racism.

In closing, I’d like to use ABW’s analogy to drive home the above point: it would be insensitive and inappropriate to use the word faggot, even in reference to cigarettes and even if you are an old British fogie, when around gay people. In other words, absent a mutually agreed-upon definition of racism, it may be inappropriate and insensitive to call a white person racist because he or she
opposes Affirmative Action solely on the basis that it affects him or her personally. Such accusations ring similar to the reflexive “playing the race card” dismissals made by so many white people.

I mean, if you fall in love with someone, do you worry because it didn’t happen exactly as it says it’s supposed to in some guide to modern romance? Language is human behavior, not a game we play according to rules we made up. The world is what it is; it refuses to conform to our definitions (which, etymologically, means “to set bounds or limits to” – precisely what the world will not give to us).

Whether we’re talking about efficient and effective business communications, or a girlfriend trying to talk to a boyfriend, the increasingly connotative use of language creates more instances of misunderstanding and therefore, more discord.

In a debate, you have to start with words that everyone has already agreed upon as its meaning and then use symmetrical logical and empirical facts. The dictionary, therefore, is a starting point. If a person needs to take liberties with the meaning of an expression to make a point, the discussion then actually must begin with an explanation building the premise for the alternate use of that expression.

I consider arguing any other way to be intellectually disingenuous.

Freedom is often defined and discussed as not being under constraint by some entity. And the defintion stops there.

Historically, across many cultures, the notion of Freedom implied not being under constraint AND having purpose and direction toward something.

What I don’t like is reading and re-reading what someone wrote to try to figure what they were intending to communicate.

First and foremost, words and language are tools of communication. If an author’s audience fails to understand what the author is trying to convey, then I believe it is the failing of the author.

I believe ABW is saying, having experienced and thought about issues of power imbalance including race and gender her entire life, is “…in discussions of complex issue Y the experience and reflections of people affected by Y should not be trumped by an abridged definition of a word describing Y. And anyone using such tactics is failing, consciously or unconsciously, to take into account the others point of view…” ABW you can correct me if I’m wrong, no hard feelings here.

I agree, sometimes whole-heartedly, with most of the arguments ABW shares with us. And even when I disagree, I love the way she communicates her ideas. Often I am humbled with her ability to write so eloquently on a topic I have been thinking about for years.

A Seib, I really can’t understand how what you have written has anything to do with this blog. I guess, and I am guessing, you are saying “..dictionaries are important tools in understanding the definition and meaning of our words and language. And anyone debating this point is failing to understand this..” What does this have to do with ABW’s post?

Please, if you post again, stick with the topic. And leave the Thesaurus alone. Tools can either help or hinder, depending on their use or misuse. Which I believe is the point of TYNTU #10.

I’ve been meaning to write something along these lines for years–not the specific parts about people pulling out dictionary definitions of racism, but the general parts about people attempting to bolster their arguments by pulling out the dictionary. I think you said everything I would have said, plus excellent discussion of use of this tactic in discussions of racism etc, so now I can just point to your entry. Thank you!

‘And yet that’s the assumption behind “The Dictionary Says!” – that they were assembled without the involvement of actual, limited, fallible human beings with biases and ignorance…’

So, just like the Bible, then.