«Complicating the rhetoric. How racial construction confounds market-based reformers’ civil rights invocations»

Laura Elena Hernández
«Complicating the rhetoric. How racial construction confounds market-based reformers’ civil rights invocations»
Education Policy Analysis Archives / Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas (EPAA/AAPE), vol. 24, n.º 1, 2016

Education Policy Analysis Archives / Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas (EPAA/AAPE) | Arizona State University | Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College | Tempe | Arizona | UNITED STATES


Extracto del apartado Discussion de la publicación en PDF. Ver las referencias bibliográficas en la publicación original del artículo.

«The Prevalence of Colorblind Discourse

»In claiming to promote the advancement of civil rights through their educational work, both Perry and Duncan simultaneously espouse a racial discourse that reflects colorblindness and the subtle derogation of marginalized racial groups. Both educational leaders reflect a general reluctance to discuss race and avoid the use of explicit racial language as predicted by Bonilla-Silva’s framework. Instead, they invoke race-laden imagery and events, use euphemisms for racial groups, and employ language that draws distinctions between themselves and other racialized groups as a means to conjure racial distinctions without explicitly naming them. More importantly, the use of racial innuendo provides them with a ‘safe’ space to express potentially harmful racial sentiments. In Perry’s case, his references to popular images and noteworthy news events that necessarily index South LA as a racialized space serve to pathologize this space as violent and gang-infested.

»While more subtle in nature, Duncan’s comments circulate negative racialized ideas, ascribing the qualities of helplessness and desperation to marginalized racial groups as well as circulating archetypical racial identities that are worthy of sympathy and support. The safety within which these sentiments were conveyed was created with differing discursive devices. For Perry, he discursively positions himself as a passive recipient of these stereotypes and projects responsibility for the creation and circulation of these ideas onto others. Duncan distances himself from the negative racial ideas he espouses by assuming the position of a moral authority, noting how this reality for individuals of color is “morally unacceptable” and persistently calling individuals to action. In this way, the use of color-blind discourse in these instances enables the leaders to preserve their positive self-image and cater to their white racial frame while reifying negative conceptualizations of marginalized racial groups.

»While both leaders do employ colorblind linguistic devices, it is important to acknowledge that they do so in varying degrees. Duncan’s comments are generally devoid of verbal incoherence, the projection of racially charged ideas, and the use of diminutives, which Bonilla-Silva and van Dijk’s frameworks predict. Conversely, Perry’s comments reflect each of Bonilla-Silva’s categories of colorblind talk and include an array of the semantic and syntactic devices van Dijk describes. While the data inhibits an analysis of why colorblind language is disproportionately present in Perry’s comments, one can consider how the interview setting and the frequency and ease of speaking on educational and racial issues affect how ideas were communicated.

»Since Duncan is a public educational figure who frequently imparts crafted speeches and discusses educational topics in front of large audiences, one could assume that he has considerable facility in expressing and conveying his ideas, even those that touch upon socially sensitive topics like race. Moreover, the public nature of his interview may contribute to the decreased presence of colorblind linguistic devices. That is, Duncan could be more inclined to perform normatively and present socially acceptable ideas given the public nature of the interview and his position as a public figure.

»Considering the Impact of the Leaders’ Colorblindness

»Despite differences in the degree to which they employ colorblind discursive moves, Perry and Duncan nonetheless espouse colorblindness and circulate negative racial ideas. On one level, the articulation of this discourse and its accompanying racial narratives aligns with and enables the market-oriented reforms in which the focal leaders support. In discursively minimizing race, the leaders de-emphasize the salience of this social category and its structural presence, allowing for the individualistic approach that characterizes market-based policies. This individualization is particularly present in Duncan’s comments as he calls attention to people of color who are struggling to attain success and opportunity through individual action rather than communitarian efforts.

»Furthermore, the leaders advance subtle characterizations of racial groups that align with many of the cultural arguments that market advocates convey in their efforts. While he actively distances himself from these sentiments, one can still see the construction and circulation of stereotypical, negative characterizations of racial groups in Perry’s comments that are often called upon by market reformers in their efforts (Buras, 2011; Lipman, 2011). In contrast, Duncan’s construction of deserving individuals of color aligns with lauded cultural attributes of hard work and dedication that undergird market ideology’s emphasis on meritocracy and grit. Overall, while the leaders comments reflect varying levels of attention to individualism, their minimization of race and allusions to culturally based arguments reflect an alignment with market ideology and the manner in which race is conceptualized within it (Goldberg, 2009).

»In addition to the manner in which their discourse supplements and reifies market logic, Perry and Duncan’s racial constructions can affect their respective organizations and the broader educational policy landscape. For Perry, he frequently engages with a multitude of teachers, students, and other CMO personnel and is a prominent member of the CMO. By virtue of his leadership position, his discourse is elevated and thus potentially held as a standard given his position of power. His espousal of colorblindness and its accompanying narratives has the potential to permeate his comments and interactions with a variety of actors in the organization, both guiding the instructional approaches he promotes and affecting the manner in which his teachers and organizational leaders engage in their day-to-day work.

»For Duncan, the ramifications may be greater. The former Secretary espoused these constructions publicly in an audio and visual recording for National Public Radio, giving his words greater potential for circulation. Compounding the potential for circulation is the attention his comments regarding Waiting for Superman and its parallels to the civil rights movement have received (Allan, 2010; Scott, 2013a). As the lead educational policymaker for several years, his racial construction represented the core ideas upon which educational policy should be based. While Duncan’s deficit-laden racial construction was subtle and nuanced, it nonetheless elevated and perpetuated colorblindness and its accompanying narratives to a prominent rhetorical and political level, lending the discourse a sense of legitimacy for many.

»Beyond the visibility of their discourse, the obfuscation of race in the leaders’ language minimizes the role of race as central problem facing communities and students of color that policy must address. As researchers have shown, race continues to have real, lived consequences that shape the quality of life for people of color (Bernal, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Tate, 1997). Social and institutional structures have generated systematic and disparate accumulation of resources among racial groups, yielding social, political, and economic consequences for communities of color (Cox, 2000; Mills, 1999; Omi & Winant, 1994; Park, 2000).

»Neglecting to explicitly discuss or name race-based inequity prevents the development of an authentic discussion regarding the persistent impact of race and how to address racial injustice. In essence, their minimization of race inhibits the educational solutions and policies that they imagine, prescribe, and implement. Furthermore, the subtle derogation of marginalized racial groups, which coexists with this racial obfuscation, suggests that not only are negative perceptions of racial groups reified through this discourse but that these conceptualizations can serve to inform educational reform development and enactment.

»For Perry, maintaining a deficit perspective has implications for how he engages with teachers and students. Holding these ideas has potential to negatively affect interactions and relationships with students, teachers, and parents, and can lead to a conscious or subconscious imposition of these ideas and ways of knowing onto individuals. For Duncan, the espousal of deficit-laden perspectives has broader implications. In serving as the nation’s leading policymaker, Duncan’s way of crafting individuals of color and educational solutions shaped the social and policy context in which states, districts, and schools must operate. His discourse suggests that educational reform must be done on behalf of struggling individuals of color who embody a certain disposition and ethic. This discursive position suggests a form of paternalism that can lead to an imposition of educational reforms onto communities of color with only ‘socially acceptable’ and ‘well behaved’ minorities in mind.

»The Incoherence of Colorblindness and Civil Rights Rhetoric

»When considering these racial constructions in the context of civil rights rhetoric, these race-based deficit perspectives confound the notion of civil rights. The simultaneous espousal of these claims is seemingly incompatible insofar that a verbal commitment to promoting racial justice while avoiding explicit discussions of race inhibits continued attention to racial disparities. In this context, questions of authenticity and commitment to civil rights advancement arise and are only exacerbated when one considers how Perry and Duncan conveyed these ideas. In particular, they presented their race discourse in a way that preserved their own self-images while derogating racialized groups. They distanced themselves from the negatively charged racial commentary and presented themselves as moral authorities who do not engage in racial discrimination.

»As Leonardo (2003) argues, discourse is often perpetuated through dissimulation or the distortion of reality to maintain power relations. In these instances, Duncan and Perry’s discourses served to maintain the racial status quo under the guise of morality and civil rights.

»The conflicting discourses also create a level of incoherence that may complicate the efficacy of the educational policies that aim to advance civil rights for marginalized racial groups. Market-oriented leaders like Perry and Duncan may indeed believe that their policies further civil rights. They may also strategically utilize civil rights rhetoric to garner support for their efforts or employ this language to infuse their approaches with a sense of meaning and purpose. Despite these intentions and motivations, their discursive patterns suggest that they simultaneously articulate negative perceptions of racial groups. This incompatibility begets questions of authenticity of civil rights claims.

»One could suggest that the rhetoric serves primarily as a legitimation tactic in promoting school choice reforms that disproportionately affect communities of color. Given that the focal cases hold leadership positions within the market-oriented educational reform movement, this possibility is critical to explore. Furthermore, the competing discourses generate questions regarding the degree to which racial equity can be achieved. The leaders’ discursive patterns suggest that underlying negative perceptions of racial groups are still maintained or that a particular ‘type’ of person of color, who exhibits specific characteristics and behaviors, are the ones who are deserving of policy support.

»This language suggests that there are boundaries or parameters around which racial equity can be advanced. From these leaders’ discourse, we can derive that the policies they advance come with stipulations as to what manner and what degree racial equity can be actualized.»