How do I respond to someone who contributes to a conversation with “I’m not racist, but … ” and then inevitably proceeds to say something racist, such as talking about immigrants on benefits or getting priority for housing?
I’m referring to social occasions with people that I am not necessarily close to but rather acquaintances I may bump into semi-regularly. I feel myself getting simultaneously angry and tongue-tied and I mostly sit with my frustration to maintain some sense of harmony in the group.
I don’t want to respond in anger, and I’m not sure facts are appropriate for the situation. I do, however, want to express my disagreement and somehow make it clear that our values are not aligned without being aggressive or contemptuous.
Eleanor says: I used to have a neighbour who was a big conspiracy theorist. She had views about the moon and how many of us have been to it (zero), the children the government sacrifices (many), and the religions controlling the world (at least one). One day I realised that from her point of view, it looked a lot like everybody agreed with her. She would bring up the child altars and the moon radars and everybody, including me, listened politely and said: “You take care now!” Nobody gave her the evidence that, in fact, we thought this was completely, totally, drinking-air-conditioner-coolant wrong.
You leave people in their bubble when you don’t tell them you disagree. You help them carry on thinking, “most people are on the same page”.
So I’m with you that it’s important to express your disagreement: for their sake as much as yours. This could be a valuable opportunity to learn that other people in their life do not see things the way they do.
I think how you do that depends a lot on what expressing your disagreement is for. Is it essentially “for the record”? Or is it for changing your interlocutor’s mind?
These two things will often pull in opposite directions. You might change minds more effectively if you listen, empathise, forgive – even when anger and contempt are reasonable responses in the circumstances. This is a famous bind: make yourself more appealing so as to be more persuasive (shutting off anger you’re entitled to), or express your feelings knowing you won’t be seen as persuasive.
It might be worth deciding in advance whether you most want to persuade or register dissent. Otherwise you risk paying all the cost of “being difficult” while accomplishing neither.
If it’s about voicing disagreement for the record, it could help to rehearse some conversational “block” phrases in advance so you don’t have to invent them when you’re tongue-tied. Something like, “I don’t share that view, and I don’t want to talk about immigrants that way.” Enough to be evidence that not everyone’s on the same page.
after newsletter promotion
Another strategy is almost Socratic: ask a tonne of questions, press them to define their key terms. The trick is to do this with a completely flat affect; it can’t be a cross examination. It has to have the air that you’re genuinely trying to get to the bottom of things. “Why did you say, “I’m not racist, but?” “What makes someone a racist?” “How are you defining ‘immigrant’?” This is more confrontational. They killed the guy the strategy is named for. But when done well, you can get your opponent to reveal the incoherence in their own view, without you ever stating your own.
If, on the other hand, you’re trying to genuinely change minds, you’re in for a longer haul. That one takes relationship building and time.
And I’d call us back to the words of Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael): “If a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. If he’s got the power to lynch me, that’s my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it’s a question of power.” The effort to change a mind is a valiant one; but these people’s attitudes only matter insofar as they join up with power. You may find that ways to overcome the injustices that make you angry aim to change the power, not just the mind.
