What if the very categories we use to fight racism are actually perpetuating it? Dr. Sheena Mason's groundbreaking work suggests a radical reimagining of how we approach racial justice.
Our brains are wired to notice differences between ourselves and others - we can’t not do it. So, it’s no surprise that language reflects this with labels that define how someone is different from “me.”
In my view, adding more words won’t solve the problem. Phrases like “a person who gets racialized as black” or “a person who gets racialized as white” may start with sameness - “a person” - but it returns to, and closes with, difference - “black” or “white.”
If the goal is to eliminate race, why not just say “a person” and leave it at that?
Our brains are wired to notice differences between ourselves and others - we can’t not do it. So, it’s no surprise that language reflects this with labels that define how someone is different from “me.”
In my view, adding more words won’t solve the problem. Phrases like “a person who gets racialized as black” or “a person who gets racialized as white” may start with sameness - “a person” - but it returns to, and closes with, difference - “black” or “white.”
If the goal is to eliminate race, why not just say “a person” and leave it at that?
If we could NOT use any language related to race, I’d be all for it, Scott.
And, I think we need an intermediate step as people (even here in Europe) use racializing language habitually.
What’s if done for me is move me closer to not using it unless I am discussing the topic and it makes sense to do so for coherence.
The more I shift my language the less I find myself using racialized language. As Wittgenstein said: “Words create worlds.”