Almost every time I use the word “racism” or “racist”, I immediately wonder whether I need to clarify — because it means different things to different people. As I worked on a future blog entry about my own participation in and experiences with racism and bigotry in general, I kept bumping into this uncertainty.

And I can’t simply link to a definition because there isn’t a cogent, widely-accepted definition. First, I attempted to address the issue within that entry, but it distracted from other points I hoped to make there. So I wrote this entry, hoping it can be something I can link to in the future, any time there is a question about what I mean when I say “racism” or “racist”.

(Skip to my definitions.)

I’m aware that not everyone will agree with the definitions I list below. As I said above, there simply isn’t a widely-accepted definition. I think it’s something society needs to grapple with. Because dialog breaks down when we descend into semantic arguments instead of discussing solutions.

Parts Of Speech

First, these are multiple words. Racism is a noun and nothing else. But racist can either be a noun or an adjective:

Adjective: “We should vote against this racist proposal.”

Noun: “The author of this proposal is a racist.”

All three have dictionary definitions, purportedly based on common usage, but which abjectly fail to encapsulate what these words mean.

The Dictionary Problem

The upside of using a dictionary is that it’s a common, agreed-upon set of meanings that can guide or explain our use of words. The downside is that the dictionary only works really well for words with simple definitions and tangible concepts; it becomes noticeably weaker when presented with complex, intangible ideas. And in any case, dictionary definitions are post factum by nature — they’re derived from how words were used.

In the case of racism and racist, the dictionary definitions are woefully inadequate, as I will explain below.

RACISM, noun: “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”

Or:

“The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

Oxford English Dictionary (here)

RACIST, noun: “A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.”

RACIST, adjective: “Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.”

Oxford English Dictionary (here)

There are immediate, obvious problems with all of these. First and most problematic is that these definitions require races to be real things (and it appears the writers of these definitions accept that races are real). By these definitions, nothing I do can ever be considered racist, simply because I don’t hold silly, outdated, unscientific notions of “races”.

There are other problems with these definitions too. The two definitions of racism infer that it’s a personal, individual act or belief (“based on the belief that one’s own race is superior”). Thus they ignore insidious forms of racism that are systemic, institutional, and legal, including unequal power structures, social hierarchies, economic inequality, and apartheid-type laws — all of which can exist without a personal, individual belief. (Granted, it was individual beliefs that gave birth to the systemic issues, but the beliefs aren’t required for these circumstances to continue to exist.)

Further, these definitions don’t account for implicit bias or microaggressions, things that don’t require an explicit belief in races or the superiority of one race over another. They also only take into account intent while ignoring impact.

I think many people prefer the dictionary definition because it absolves them. (We actually know, scientifically, that humanity isn’t divided into races; therefore we can’t be racist by those definitions.)

The Social Sciences Definition

Sociologists use more nuanced descriptions of racism. These definitions (plural because I couldn’t find a single, standard version) are broader and include structural or instutional inequalities within a given culture or society. Because this sociological definition is more more complex, and therefore more difficult to explain, it doesn’t hold much sway in the popular imagination. And because no two people phrase it the same way, I’ve distilled several explanations into what follows. (I reserve the right to update this definition in the interests of accuracy.)

“The confluence of race-based social hierarchies, unjust power structures, and systemic inequalities that result in power and/or privilege for some, and discrimination and/or oppression for others, unjustly limiting access to resources, rights, and privileges.”

Wil C. Fry, 2019

This definition has multiple advantages: (1) it is inclusive of more situations that harm/oppress people, (2) it doesn’t require conscious intent on the part of any living persons, and (3) it doesn’t require a personal belief that humanity is divided by “races”.

It focuses more on impact than intent. Societal instituions — government, laws, courts, universities, hospitals, economies, etc. — don’t have to be consciously promoted with a racial bias, as long as the effect is racially discriminatory. It is possible for individuals to either benefit from or be harmed by the social hierarchies without personally holding any bigoted views. In other words, I can perpetuate and/or benefit from a racist system even if I personally know all humans belong to the same race.

One thing I don’t like about it is that it appears to remove any personal responsbility; we can now say: “It’s not me that’s racist; it’s the system oppressing you!” But perhaps its biggest fault — as a definition — is that it doesn’t accurately encapsulate what most of us mean by racism.

Another problem is that very few people are aware of this kind of definition — and that you can’t find, with a simple internet search, this definition listed on any well-known website like Dictionary.com or Yahoo! Answers (does anyone really use Yahoo! Answers?)

Using Both Is Problematic

What happens is that multiple definitions are floating around, and each individual has another in her head — and then nearly every dialog on the topic breaks down into arguments over whether something is really racist or not.

As NPR notes, having multiple, conflicting definitions means we often don’t realize what’s being said (the story is about how journalists use the words in news stories):

“The very different ways people understand racism can change the entire premise of a story: if a subject says ‘policing is racist’, does an editor or reader take that to mean that individual officers are bigots or do they take that to mean that police are deployed in ways that have specific consequences for black and Latinx people? A producer or reader who has been stopped repeatedly by the police is going to read everything that flows from that statement differently. For mainstream newsrooms, the friction between these two notions of racism — as primarily about the physics of people’s souls or primarily about the mechanics of our society — is going to present a larger crisis of credibility as the country gets browner.”

And the whole time white people like me are toying with words and semantics, other groups of people see racism happening to them and can’t imagine what’s taking us so long to decide on what the words mean.

Racism, like other forms of bigotry, has the curious factor that it’s not just one thing. It’s not only slavery, lynching, and segregation. It’s not only slurs and fear and poorly masked envy and/or desire. It’s not only unjust societal hiearchies. It’s all of this and more. And it can happen regardless of whether we hold unfounded beliefs in races.

Concocting A Better Definition

I didn’t come here to merely complain that it’s too hard to define racism, or that everyone else is wrong. I wrote this page to (1) propose concocting a better definition, and (2) actually write one that I can point to when I’m questioned about what I mean.

For me, an ideal definition (of any word) should (1) include everything described by the word and (2) exclude everything that isn’t described by the word. For example, you can’t define table as “a flat surface” because floor and wall are flat surfaces while not being tables. So it must be more specific than “a flat surface”, but not so specific that it excludes some types of tables. For example, if you add “with four supporting legs”, then you exclude all tables with three legs, with only a center-post, or supported by wall attachments.

The goal is to get accurate and useful definitions of racism and racist. They should cover the various ways that racism currently exists.

(Of course, I can’t possibly include all the ways the words are used. Because they’re sometimes used in silly ways. For example: “The Black Lives Matter movement is racist.” And earnest people have earnestly claimed that the emails they sent me of Michelle Obama drawn caricaturized as an ape weren’t in any way racist. My definitions — below — will not include these usages of the words that take away from meaningful applications.)

I also thought about the relative importance of impact versus intent. Should the definition include only one and not the other? Both? Neither? Can an act be racist if there was no intent for it to harm, marginalize, denigrate, or otherwise negatively affect another person? (And a prerequisite for intent is some awareness/knowledge of the act’s possible consequences.) On the other hand, can an act be racist if there was no impact? (Say, a white guy wears blackface, but he’s alone and no photos were made.) I know people who would say “yes” in both cases; I know others who would say “no” in both cases. What if neither intent nor impact were present?

I think I depart from many on the left when I say: it is reasonable that at least one of these has to be present or it doesn’t qualify. If there’s no impact (no victim), then there must at least be a potential for impact. And if there is no potential for impact, then there must at least be intent or some awareness or knowledge that the act qualifies.

(In my mind, I place greater weight on the impact than on the intent, and not just with racism. If my child is playing near a street on which you’re driving, it matters little to me whether you intended to drive over the curb and strike him/her; what matters greatly to me is whether your car actually strikes/injures him/her.)

But perhaps most importantly, for any of this to make sense, our new-and-improved definitions of racism and racist have to dispense with the quaint bullshit that there are some sort of objective divisions between populations of humans, called “races”. Not only do we know from genetics that this isn’t true, but it doesn’t matter whether it’s true if some of us still act like it is.

So now I have a basic framework for formulating my new definitions. They should:

• not require a belief in “races”
• require either impact or potential for impact (or at least intent)
• exclude obviously disingenuous usages

RACISM, noun: “Acts and/or societal/institutional inequalities which harm, oppress, and/or denigrate a person or people due to their identification as part of a historically oppressed or marginalized group sometimes characterized as a ‘race’ (or have the potential to, or the intent to). Also, the beliefs and attitudes that lead to these acts and inequalities.”

RACIST, adjective: “Of, or pertaining to, racism.”

RACIST, noun: “A person characterized by racism or racist acts.”

Wil C. Fry, 2019

Here I include acts and beliefs of individuals as well unjust societal realities. There’s no requirement for a silly belief that “races” are real things. These reflect what I typically mean when I use the words today. I think the above definition also covers microagressions — “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership”. I covered the accusations of racial bias in policing. And this includes what I see applied in stories and memes about barebecue Becky and other incidents of white people calling the police on black people apparently just because they were black.

Further, this blocks the absurd claim that “reverse racism” is a thing — because my definitions require that the victims be part of a historically marginalized/oppressed group. Yes, a white person in the U.S. can be the victim of many things, but not of racism (unless she was mistakenly perceived to be non-white, or due to an association with non-white persons or causes).

Use As An Umbrella Term

The way I’ve constructed the definition of racism — or at least what I intended to accomplish — it should function as an umbrella term. Other words we currently use are subsidiaries to it. For example, “race-based discrimination” is a subset of the above definition.

Conclusion

No, I’m not convinced my definitions are perfect. I reserve the right to update them after receiving criticism, suggestions, or corrections. I think this is a step in the right direction. If any reader is aware of better — more accurate, more comprehensive, etc. — definitions, please enlighten me.