The Problem is Institutional Racism

The Problem is Institutional Racism

by Deniz Utlu

[This reading sample is translated abridged from the German on the Internet, https://www.vsa-verlag.de/uploads/media/www.vsa-verlag.de-Tang-ua-Institutioneller-Rassismus.pdf.]

When I was asked the question at the "Textland" literature festival in Frankfurt am Main in 2020 why it was so difficult for us in Germany to talk about racism, I wrote down three spontaneous answers, three hurdles that make it difficult to talk about racism: the identity hurdle, the guilt hurdle and the renunciation hurdle. However, when I think back to the Welcoming time many years ago, I have to add a fourth hurdle: the imagination hurdle.

The list of hurdles may be endless, it is certainly longer. But here are four possible answers to the question of why we find it so difficult to talk about racism. These hurdles are barriers, as it were, to thinking about a society based on solidarity, in which people with different experiences can develop a sense of belonging.

The identity barrier

Not long ago, awareness of the existence of racism was not widespread in Germany. The word was hardly socially acceptable, perhaps it still isn't socially acceptable. Racism was primarily a problem elsewhere in the world, but less so here. For example, the USA has a racism problem, whereas in Germany racism does not (or no longer) exist in Germany.

The diagnosis that racism does exist in Germany triggers an identity crisis. This is because the current national self is defined by overcoming fascism and respecting universal values. Anti-Semitism and racism are by definition not part of the national self-image, while conversely anti-racism is often seen as part of the collective identity. Anyone who refers to racism therefore automatically attacks the German identity. Of course, there is nothing to be said against making anti-racism part of that very identity. But anti-racism should always be understood as a commitment to universal values, such as that every person has the right to live in dignity and free from discrimination. This is never in the sense of a national appropriation of these universal values, which it thereby denies to other communities. One example of this is the way the authorities deal with racist violence: in the NSU murders. The police did not investigate the right-wing extremist scene, but the migrant milieu. According to a case analysis by the Hamburg police, these murders would contradict the values of Germans and therefore had to be committed by "foreigners" or "migrants."

The guilt hurdle

Racism is a structure -in people's heads or in institutions... Both sides are involved in the same structure and reproduce it again and again. Some benefit from it, others pay. It is not decisive whether those who are disadvantaged want to be. They can take responsibility by becoming aware of these structures, challenging them, helping dismantle them and trying - where possible - to forego their advantages. Although these advantages are often legitimate, they are nevertheless unjust. They are lawful because racism also extends into the legal system and is reproduced in institutions. This is what is called institutional or structural racism.

Racism is a structure in all areas of society, including the legal system: in legislation (who formulates the laws and votes on them?), the administration of justice (who makes the judgments?) and the enforcement (keyword: racist police violence). The same applies to other areas in which people experience discrimination: Who are the teachers at a school? Who are the decision-makers in the school authority?

In all these areas, there are few people with a migration background in positions of power who have scope for decision-making. However, this is not solely a question of representation, because even if they do get into such positions, it is difficult - sometimes even impossible - for them to stand up to discriminatory structures: A single person of color can do little to change an established application process whose test questions and selection and selection criteria are designed in such a way that, for example, people with an educated middle-class background are given preference. It is also possible that migrant people, due to the incentive system in the institution reproduce the structures of the dominant culture.

In order to change this structure, people in positions of power have to become aware of their own role. They have to ask themselves whether their behavior or their decisions have contributed to other people being discriminated against because of their name, their appearance or other arbitrary external characteristics. This is difficult - especially in Germany, because this admission quickly amounts to an admission of guilt, against which all kinds of defense mechanisms are initially deployed: "I am not guilty. It's not my fault! I only mean well! It's not my fault that I'm white and have rich parents with extensive networks!" It would be better not to talk about guilt, but to talk about responsibility.

Nobody can do anything about the structures (e.g. whiteness) into which he or she was born. But everyone has the opportunity to become aware of these structures and to consider what he or she can do to change them. It is a question of self-determination. And a question of responsibility, to listen to oneself where one succumbs to racist thought patterns. However, this is difficult - partly due to the fear of incurring guilt or taking the blame. Nobody wants to be guilty and have to atone. Repentance also helps no one who is disadvantaged by the racist structure.

The renunciation hurdle

Racism also means a transfer of resources, money and time from some to others. If a white person has to look for a new rental apartment one month less than a black person or an Asian German, then statistically they have benefited from a racist structure. You could could say that a transaction has taken place that neither the tax office or any other authority was aware of. The person of color seeking accommodation has involuntarily given up a month of her life to the white person;, the latter has thereby been given a month of life as a gift. If this is disclosed by talking honestly about racism, a claim follows. If you think it through to the end, ultimately a claim arises for payment of people who experience racism against those who benefit from racist structures.

Unfortunately, the issue itself makes it very difficult to talk about: even the most good-natured white person who is eager to take responsibility would probably find it difficult if a black person rang the doorbell of their newly occupied apartment and says: "You can keep the apartment, but I want a week of your life." This is initially just a thought experiment with the aim of making an invisible transaction visible.

This does not mean that a certain person who is racially discriminated against on the housing market receives reparation payments from any privileged person on the housing market. This is not the place to think about a legal mechanism that gives those affected access to redress.

However, it should be noted that Germany has signed international agreements on the protection of human rights and against discrimination. This means that the state has a duty of protection to prevent discrimination and, in case of doubt, to make reparation.

Racism serves to create and maintain social hierarchies, including economic exploitation and the unequal distribution of economic resources. The dismantling of racism in the form of equality of previously disadvantaged people means - if it is meant seriously - a renunciation of privileges for those who have so far benefited from inequality.

This is similar to the gender pay gap: it is naive to believe that the wages of women or those classified as women can simply be increased, without men or those classified as men changing. More realistically, men* will have to give up part of their wages. But that hurts and everyone has arguments as to why they need the extra euro. But that makes it difficult to even name the unequal treatment.

I call this problem the renunciation hurdle. We have to overcome it, to be able to talk about racism.

The imagination barrier

For many people, it is difficult to imagine that fellow human beings in the same country, neighborhood, company or school have completely different realities of life. Although the building fabric and architecture of the classroom are identical, the realities experienced in this room are different. More than different, they are contradictory, mutually mutually exclusive.

How is it bearable when a teacher who has always praised you only saw the mistakes in a classmate with the same performance? The selective perception of mistakes based on racist assumptions can injure the self-esteem of pupils sequentially over the years - that is, through countless small, everyday devaluations or even permanently destroy it.

Most of those who were affected by racism at school and were later able to assert themselves at work rebuilt this self-esteem with great effort or developed other strategies, such as learning to always - as a matter of course - overstep their own boundaries to belong and get ahead...

Accepting the reality of others or seeing it at all is sometimes difficult.

Technological developments, which are increasingly aligning the perceived world (at least the virtual one) more and more to our preferences, also systematically train us to tolerate the fact that our realities differ.

The fact that the social pedagogue in the company whose diversity concept I had shared with the employees... simply couldn't imagine people living in the same country at the same time, ultimately in the same space as her, could experience reality so differently. Incidentally, she was very committed: she successfully campaigned in Berlin's education policy for migrant children and helped to ensure that their share in the public sector - was part of the reality in Germany.