Intersectionality of Race Politics and Culture

To What Extent Is the Black Lives Matter Movement Changing the Perception of Race in American Politics?

Introduction

State violence against African-Americans has historically galvanized and amplified mass movements that birthed the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 and, more recently, the era of Black Lives Matter. As protests gripped America and spread globally in 2020 against police brutality and racial profiling, the movement evolved and expanded to include issues of intersectionality in politics, the prison-industrial complex, the failings of the health and social infrastructure for African-Americans especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, militarization of the police and areas of discrimination. The research question of this paper is this: To what extent the Black Lives Matter movement is influencing the American political diaspora and shifting the political narrative and development from traditional party affiliations to identity politics?

Prior research has shown that race and politics in the use are correlated. Hanes, Smith and Wallace (2017) have provided a comprehensive assessment of how government structure, representation, polices, movements, and influence has historically, and in modern day, treated the African American diaspora. They give a racial perspective to key American political debates and decisions that focuses on intersectionality analysis of the Black Lives Matter movement, key policy changes that were enacted in its wake during the Obama Administration, and questions regarding its enduring vs. transitory nature. West (2005) has identified three anti-democratic dogmas: free-market fundamentalism, aggressive militarism, and escalating authoritarianism that have shaped the issue. Moreover, West (2005) argues that each of these dogmas represents a substantial threat to democracy and serves as a reason for the existence of the Black Lives Matter movement today and the resistance it has encountered. The resistance to Black Lives Matter among ordinary Americans is something that needs to be considered more deeply, however. As Pew Research has pointed out, only 1 in 4 Americans actually supports the Black Lives Matter Movement (Horowitz and Livingston 2020). Clearly there is a need to understand what is going on in the American consciousness and an examination of the extent to which Black Lives Matter is influencing shifting political narratives may help to provide that understanding. It is crucial to resolve this question if any progress towards truly representative democracy is going to be made in America.

The more that one can understand the motivations and perceptions surrounding the intersectionality of race, politics and culture; the better suited one will be to identify solutions to problems of justice and equality. Perhaps because of the newness of the Black Lives Matter movement, this ground has not been explored. Investigating this gap will help scholars understand important political behavior with respect to resistance of Black Lives Matter on the part of three-quarters of Americans.

The findings of this paper suggest that at root the problem is cultural and amplified by what Horkheimer and Adorno (2007) identified as the Culture Industry, the giant media complex that cultivates cultural norms within society. As Angela Davis (2012) pointed out, the prison industrial complex is really just one part of the problem of justice and equality in America: underneath it all is a cultural problem that pits blacks against whites so that ruling class can maintain its hegemony without facing a serious political opponent.

This paper proceeds with a literature review that discusses the relevant literature on the topic of race, politics and American culture, and how they intersect. The literature review is followed by a conclusion that summarizes the findings and discusses areas where further research is required.

Literature Review

Black Lives Matter

McFadden (2020) highlights some of the enduring successes of the Black Lives Matter movement from closing a notorious jail, to advocating for police officer arrests and convictions, to support for congressional elections. She argues that even without street protests the movement continues to impact and spread, which indicates that it has gained traction among some segments of society. The problem, however, is that Black Lives Matter has not reached critical mass in terms of tipping the scale in the wider American consciousness, as three-fourths of Americans still withhold their support from the organization.

Edgar and Johnson (2020) examine the meaning of the Black Lives Matter movement and the rise of the countermovement rhetoric of All Lives Matter and in doing so highlight the movement’s importance in substantiating ‘white fragility.’ Theirs is an important work to consider because it gets more to the point of the resistance of the majority of Americans to the Black Lives Matter movement. However, its weakness is that it applies the label of “white fragility” to the resistance movement, which is a label that would only serve to further alienate and supercharge that same resistance movement, members of which would object to the label. Labeling theory is useful here is a lens for understanding how labels are applied and what they mean, especially when it comes to the defensiveness of the majority of Americans in what they might see as an attack on their own cultural values, norms and beliefs. The resistance has to be examined and understood, but it should be examined in a manner that refrains from further polarizing the parties involved. In other words, the work of Edgar and Johnson (2020) helps to show the problem, but it does not help to bring about real, workable knowledge regarding how to address it. Why shouldn’t three-quarters of Americans be permitted to feel that “all lives matter”? That is a question that has as much right to be asked and answered as any other. But when the framing of the question is done in a way that dismisses the motives of this population as being born in “fragility” and a sense of losing what is theirs it merely creates more hostility and animosity in an already charged atmosphere of anger and paranoia.

One possible solution to that problem of resistance can be found in the work of Rickford (2016), who explains that despite being a fledgling, decentralized movement, Black Lives Matter has the potential to expand its sphere of influence through appealing to other grassroots movements and creating a new theory for modern mass struggle. The strength of this work is that it sees more holistically the problem of conflict and struggle in American society and does not attempt to create more discord through further alienation but instead points out how harmony and unity of purpose can be achieved through the alignment of purpose and vision. The weakness of the work is that it is not totally comprehensive but merely an initial exploration of a potential solution to the problem of resistance. More understanding is still required in order to provide the grist to make such a movement possible. But this work does at least serve as a suitable starting place.

Identity Politics

With the arrival of the first black president in US history, some hailed it as a pivotal moment in American politics. Yet others were disappointed with the Obama Administration and the direction the country has taken since he left office. Harris (2012) analyses the extent to which the Obama Administration has favored rhetoric over policy in representing the African American constituency and whether it has been affective in addressing their concerns. In doing so, the Obama Administration’s intervention in racial profiling and policy brutality is shown as insubstantial. The strength of this work by Harris (2012) is that it shows how rhetoric is limited in terms of having an impact on cultural values and norms when policy is not effectively correlated with the speeches that are made. The limitations of this work are that it does not investigate the underlying cultural issues that prevent the policies from being implemented.

However, Ginsberg et al. (2019) dig more deeply into the topic with their investigation of American politics. In their extensive coverage of the systems of government in the United States as well as key factors and means by which government structure and policies are influenced, their work, in comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the Tea Party, shows how direct action is used today to protect fundamental freedoms and how, historically, it has proven to change government sentiment and structure. That is the book’s main strength. Its core weakness is that it does not explain why, in spite of this finding, direct action continues to be resisted by the majority of Americans.

A better and more insightful examination of the reason for the failure of action may be found in Fenno’s (1998) examination of the conduct of members of the House of Representatives. Fenno (1998) identifies the ‘home-style’ strategies; i.e., how Members of Congress view their constituencies and adapt their political behavior to appeal to them, that Members of Congress use to get re-elected. Members of Congress favor policy over personal relationships. The strength of the work is that Fenno’s reasoning can be applied to the effectiveness of this approach in addressing African American concerns at a congressional level.

Politics and politicking do play a large part in the problem of division and the maintenance of the status quo, and in turn the rise of identity politics swings the other way as part of a pendulum effect: the more the status quo is maintained, the more vigorously a counter-cultural faction emerges. This is where Lightsey’s (2015) work comes into play. Lightsey (2015) analyses the role of Queer feminists in the Black Lives Matter movement and the space they occupy within its larger intersectional context. In doing so, Lightsey (2015) shows that identity politics have commandeered a commanding presence in political discourse—which is the strength of the work. The weakness of the work is that it does not explain how this leads to an ever-growing fracturing and fragmentation of the American socio-political and cultural landscape. With more and more groups emerging to proclaim a set of identity politics, social cohesion is undermined, which is an issue that needs to be explored in order to fully satisfy this paper’s research question.

Theory and Practice

The questions of theory and practice also need to be discussed and examined in detail because this is where the rubber inevitably meets the road. Critical theory, conflict theory and critical race theory have all been applied to the problems discussed in this paper by researchers in the past. However, the application of theory to practice remains a problem all of its own. Understanding why this is can help to provide more insight into the research question in terms of explaining what the various sides to the influence of Black Lives Matter are thinking and how they are acting. Helpful in this respect is Lawrence (2015) who applies lessons from critical race theory to the Black Lives movement to examine racial perspectives at all levels of the government. This is an important work for framing what the various levels of government are doing in response to the problem of social justice in America and why those levels of government act in the manner they do. The weakness of the work is that it still frames the issue within a single perspective, which is unlikely to be accepted by all sides of the issue. Indeed, one of the main stumbling blocks of those who resist the Black Lives Matter movement is its application of critical race theory, which to the resistance movement represents something antagonistic to their own set of values and cultural identity.

Escobar (2020) attempts to ameliorate offended feelings by explaining the distinction between rioting as a form of constructive protest and viewing damage to property as a result of looting as inherently ‘violent’ when it not causing harm to a moral agent. The attempt is laudable in the sense that it focuses on the moral characteristics underpinning the motives of individuals taking part in the actions. However, it opens itself to many criticisms from individuals who oppose all such forms of protest and does not satisfactorily identify some of the more objective criticisms that opponents of Black Lives Matter have raised in response to said lootings.

Perhaps a better and more constructive place to start to understand the justifications for Black Lives Matter and what three-fourths of Americans may be missing when they oppose the movement is to begin with the facts pointed out by Ghandnoosh (2015) regarding the racial injustices emanating from within the criminal justice system and what Davis (2012) has called the prison industrial complex. Ghandnoosh (2015) analyses the overrepresentation of African Americans in the criminal justice system and how that ties into increasing unrest within the minority community. It is the same issue that Davis (2012) has addressed numerous times in her works and activism. The issue is simply one of fairness and oppression: the question raised is why the black population is overrepresented in the prison population. Those who resist Black Lives Matter are likely to argue that the reason for the overrepresentation is that blacks commit more crimes—but this is true only if one accepts the modern system of policing as justified. If whites use marijuana at the same rates as blacks, why are blacks penalized at a higher rate than whites? The answer is that the criminal justice system deliberately targets the black population for reasons of maintaining a power structure, according to Ghandnoosh (2015) and Davis (2012). This is a good starting point for wading into the divide between those who recognize the need for Black Lives Matter and those who resist it.

As Clayton (2018) points out, it is very much a situation akin to the Civil Rights Movement of several decades ago: in that movement there was a lot of pressure to maintain the old social ways regardless of the problems it caused; at the same time there was effort to change the system and recognize the rights of the oppressed. Clayton (2018) analyzes the Black Lives Matter movement in the context of the Civil Rights Movement to draw parallels between what happened in the past and what is happening today. But, again, not everyone is going to accept that narrative. Buchanan, Bui and Patel (2020) point this fact out in their article, which highlights the achievement of the Black Lives Matter movement, but also analyses how that achievement can either bolster the movement or allow it to peter out. When all is said and done, the movement must reach across the American divide if it is going to gain the kind of traction that the Civil Rights Movement gained in mainstream America. The difference between the two movements, however, is what those who resist Black Lives Matter may point out as cause for their resistance. Indeed, that is the main weakness of the works by Clayton (2018) and Buchanan et al. (2020): they do not provide solid enough examination for how the other side sees these issues and what the feelings and thoughts of those who oppose the movement genuinely are. In order for complete understanding of the intersectionality of race, politics and culture to be achieved, complete awareness of all sides, objectively speaking, has to be obtained.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper has been to identify the extent to which the Black Lives Matter movement is influencing the American political diaspora and shifting the political narrative and development from traditional party affiliations to identity politics. Solving this puzzle is important for the greater body of knowledge in this research agenda because it sheds light on why such a small percentage of the American public supports the Black Lives Matter movement in spite of mounting evidence of problems in policing and in criminal justice in general; but also for both political science and social science purposes, as politics and the social dynamic both contribute to the problems of injustice and inequality identified by conflict and critical theorists in America today.

The paper’s major contribution is that it identifies the obstacles that keep the majority of Americans from embracing the Black Lives Matter movement. It shows what factors prevent that support even as identity politics become more and more prevalent in mainstream society. The implications of these findings are that American cultural norms and values are being cemented and rifts in social cohesion are deepening so that groups are polarized more than ever even as a growing need for unity against the ruling class and its system of justice continues to gain in power.