Dismantling Institutions & Rethinking America

In the article “What is Path-Dependency and How Does It Help Explain Systemic Racism in America?,” an initial unpacking of what path dependencies are and how they work was done. TLDR; Path dependencies are historical situations or happenings which pave a path for present day circumstances through habit, learning, and reinforcement - kind of like the way that water down a hillside carves a path through the rock that will dictate how water runs down that hillside until a massive disruption comes and changes the water’s path. “Path Dependency 101” addressed the fact that dismantling institutions is a necessary action to address path dependencies, but what does this dismantling of institutions look like in America?

It looks like addressing addressing racist policies and calling for the end or repeal of these policies at the local, state, and federal level at a local, state, and federal level. It looks like voting for politicians who will support this dismantling. Dismantling structures is one important ingredient in the recipe, but it isn’t the only aspect to necessarily focus on to address racial inequity & systemic racism once and for all. There are other important steps to take in order to dismantle systemic racism than just addressing formal institutions.

Glenn Loury, the first Black tenured professor of economics at Harvard verified this in his article “Racial Inequality in America Post-Jim Crow Segregation.” (Source) In the article, he highlights two types of racial bias: reward bias, which is the bias that comes out of transactional discriminatory treatment and development bias, which is the bias that comes out of societal relations which are dictated by perceived biases and which lead to discriminatory treatment. Transactional discriminatory treatment, which is the treatment that comes from reward bias, is discrimination that occurs in physical transactions, such as denying an individual a loan because of their skin color or passing someone over for a job because of their skin color. Development on the other hand is less transactional (because you’re Black, I won’t give you a job/a loan/interact with you), and has more to do with social stigmas. Behaviors such as a white woman holding her purse closer to her body when she passes a black person because she perceives the Black person as more likely to steal, or passing over a kid in a job because they speak in Ebonics and there is a perception that people who speak in Ebonics are less intelligent would both be examples of development bias.

Development bias is much less conscious, but is much more deeply ingrained. Because it is so deeply ingrained, and unobvious, Loury implies that development bias is more important to address. This is because, although development bias and reward bias may reinforce one another, development bias is is harder to address due to the nature that it manifests itself through. This insidiousness is what makes it so critical to address.

Contrary to a lot of the arguments around path dependencies, Loury denies, or at least downplays, the strong role of systemic racism in institutions such as the mass incarceration system, and although I still believe the case can strongly be made, where Loury agrees with this article is in his statement that “Racial inequality is, in substantial part, the outcome of a system of non-market social interactions such as these that entangle us together.” Here, Loury is verifying that racial inequality, and systemic racism by proxy, is reinforced by social norms which are a form of institution. To begin to address these social norms, it is important to understand why the “us” vs. “them” narrative between Blacks and whites was created (see: slavery) and why it persists (see: path dependencies).

Loury argues that in order to address development bias, or socially normative racial biases in America, it is not so important to erect race-focused policies as it is to erect policies that will address all disadvantaged people in America, including those who are racially disadvantaged - by creating a “welfare state consistent with our demographic realities, our own values [as Americans], and our fiscal capacities.” (Source) Loury places particular emphasis on education policy that will create equitable access to education to help foster the growth and development of young minds. He also places emphasis, however, on a less tangible solution, which is to reframe the American definition or “us vs. them” to a collective “we”, in order to begin to address the development bias and the social norms that drive this development bias that have inevitably led to the ongoing systematic disenfranchisement of marginalized racial groups in America. For WP it means checking racial biases and asking oneself why they may have had a certain first impression of a person, as well as becoming more consciously aware of micro-aggressions than ever before. For everyone, this reframing means more racially and socially aware conversations with our children in order to re-frame the way the next generation thinks about the composition of American society. Once this conception of the collective “we” is addressed, a better foundation for a future of equity and equality will have been established for us as a country to build upon.

Another important task in addressing systemic racism revolves around centering Black people “in the creation of new policies, systems, and institutions…[and] [rejecting] the ideology grounded in white supremacy and anti-Blackness [in order to] shift narratives to reinvigorate our shared imagination.” Our government and party leadership - on both sides - are at large for this work. As the movers and shakers of the policy landscape of our country, change through the creation of new policies, systems, and institutions starts with them - but Corporations and individuals are also just as accountable. Corporations to begin to do the right thing instead of supporting the same capitalistic cycle that harms disadvantaged folks so extremely, and individuals to do the right thing by voting for government officials with progressive and anti-racist values, and by only spending their dollars at companies that are implementing anti-Racist business practices.

Similar to what Loury is advocating for, shifting this narrative towards centering Black people to reinvigorate a shared imagination is largely akin to changing the American conception of the collective “we”, but takes Loury’s argument further by advocating for the specific task of centering Blackness. What is Centering Blackness?

“Centering Blackness takes into account the ways in which our social and economic structures are built on the invisibility and disposability, and yet necessity, of all Black people and Black labor.”

To do this, not only do policies need to be created which will address disadvantaged communities by creating policies that will lift up and protect Black people, but it takes this a step further by stating that it should be Black people - particularly Black women - who design these policies. Centering Blackness does not mean losing sight of non-Black communities, quite the contrary. Anti-Black policies or policy blockages end up harming non-Black communities as well. (Source) Centering Blackness even warns against the danger of the “dismantling white supremacy” rhetoric, because even this rhetoric centers whiteness. It is important to address the presence of systemic racism in America, but it is also important to do so in a way which refrains from centering whiteness rather than Blackness. This is done by understanding how historical policies continue to manifest in the lives of Black people, but then reimagine the organization of rules and structures in a society where anti-blackness doesn’t, and didn’t exist. (Source) The “Centering Blackness” approach concludes by saying that in order to address the racial divides of today, it is important to determine “a framework for policy change as well as a narrative and cultural shift strategy.” Hearkening back to systemic racism and path dependencies, this is simply calling for reform to both formal (policy) and informal (social) institutions in America which have been historically oppressive.