COMMUNICATION as RACED
Judith N. Martin And Thomas K. Nakayama
(Salam)
Conversations about race in the United States at the beginning of the 21st century reflect the contradictory status of race in society. On the one hand, the conversations seem to be ubiquitous-discussions of affirmative action policies in hiring and education, equal access to voting during national and state elections, and persistent racial disparities are often in the news. In the other hand, conversations about race in workplace and social setting often are uneasy or simply absent. Examinations of the racial dimensions of our own discipline ore no different. On the one hand, adversement seek faculty of color, but, on the other hand, there is little discussion about how communication is raced, what this means, and the implications of this racialization for students and faculty.
There are at least three ways to view the relationship between communications and race:
1. Racial histories and demographics inform and reflect communication behaviors
2. The conceptualization and study of communication is raced-historically and contemporaneously
3. The field of communication is raced
In this essay, we’ll first define what we mean by race and then describe these three approaches, focusing primarily on the third.
Scientists today largely have discredited traditional physiological/biological notions of race, noting that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them (Omi & Winant, 1994; Wells, 2002). They, along with communication scholars, emphasize instead the social construction of race and the fluidity of racial categories. For example, scholars have shown how the category “white” evolved over the years in the united states, expanding to include people of Irish, Jewish, and southern European descent-all previosly excluded as not quite white (Brodkin, 1999; Ignatiev, 1995;Jacobson, 1998). Race, then is a social construction, but it has a very real, material impact on our everyday lives. It is a fiction, but it is real and it is this cultural contradiction that undergirds our conversations on race and its place in communication studies.
Communication Behavior Is Raced
A first view of communication as raced examines how racial characteristics inform communication habits. Stated simply, communication is an intensely racialized practice. With whom we communicate with them, and how much we communicate with others follows largely racialized formations. Communication scholars for years accepted that race influences the communication behaviors of “others”, but only racently have we turned the spotlight explicitly on the communication of white people. The research exposes the underlying racial hierarchy and describes how the connection between race and communication for white people largely goes unrecognized (Nakayama & Krizek, 1995). Though people who are not white see that distinctness, dominance, normalcy, and privilege are characteristics of whiteness, and hence influence the communication of white people, white people themselves often do not recognize or see these connections (Bahk & Jandt, 2004)
In their study of student communication at a multiracial campus, Halualani, Chitgopekar, Morrison, and Dodge (2004) highlight the general features of this link between race and communication, reflecting larger societal patterns. That is, those students (like most individuals) largely communicate with other in their own racial group, despite living in an increasingly multiracial/multiethnic society. Individuals do not, however, simply choose to communicate with members of a particular racial or ethnic group. Instead, these communication patterns reflect larger social organizing about where racial groups predominately live and the kinds of workplace encounters they are likely to have, as well as the leisure aspects of our racialized society. In short, we argue that it is imperative to place our communication practices within the context of a highly racialized society in order to better understand everyday communication practices. Yet, to understand why the relationship between race, power, and communication is often obviated, we also need to axamine the historical development of the study of communication.
The Study of Communication Is Raced
A second view suggests that the very study of communication it self is raced. From its origins in 5th century BCE Greece, the study of communication (then called rhetoric) focused almost exclusively on the communication patterns of those in power. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and other were interested in empowering Greek and Roman citizens, although ignoring the ways that communication might help slaves, women, and other noncitizen advocate for their interest, needs, and desires. The practice and study of communication was by and for those already empowered in society (Crowley & Hawhee, 1999; Dues & Brown, 2004).
This elitism was not easily translated into the development of communication studies in the United States. The drive for democratic participation in society was a major motive for the development of “speech” courses for those students who did not come from privileged backgrounds (Cohen,1994). Even today, communication studies is largely missing from elite institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, and Emory, but remains prominents at less elite ones.
We must note, however, that this democratic drive was marked by the racialized society in which it occurred. When the then new land grant institutions were established by the 1862 Morrill Act, public speaking was taught mainly to empower its white male students largely from farming families and other nonelite backgrounds to participate in democratic institutions; the study of communication (speech), meanwhile, remained in largely segregated context.1 The Second Morril Act established “1890s institutions,” which are today known as historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Theses schools, thought undoubtedly important, offered segregated and sometimes second-class educational opportunities for their students.
It is instructive, then, to examine how the study of communication continues to be raced today in our research, teaching, and practice. This examination follows a trend set by other disciplines as well as several subdisciplines within the field of communication. For example, anthropologists have recognized anthropology as currently one of the “least integrated or whitest professions” (Shanklin,2000,p.99). More important, Shanklin goes on to explore the implications of this whiteness that anthropology delivers “inchoate messages about anthropological understanding of race and racism in introductory texts and that anthropologists do not participate actively in public discussion” (p.99).
Similarly, the accrediting Council for Education in the field of journalism and mass communication notes that the standard failed most frequently in accreditation in this disciplines Standard 12 is that which calls for racial integration of faculty and students and the inclusion of women. (De Uriarte, Bodinger-de Uriarte, & Benavides, 2003). The second most failed standard is Standard 3, which calls for diversity in curriculum. Where diverse curriculum exists, it is rarely a required course (pp.vii-viii). In 2000, minorities earned only 25% of all BA degrees and 10% of all MA Degress in U.S journalism programs. Figures remain miniscule for PhDs, now almost universally required for a tenured position as a journalism educator (p.viii).
The Field of Communication is Raced
Can the same be said for the field of communication? Are we largely a white profession, white in racial composition of faculty and students, white in curiculum, white in research interests and theorizing, and largely silent when it comes to the public debate on race and communication?2
Taking a quick look at intitutional data on communication majors highlights the whiteness of our disciplines and its attraction to white students out of proportion to their demographic numbers. We highlight the two institutions at which we currently work. At Temple University, 59.4% of the students are white, but 65.6% of the communications and theater students are white. Ar Arizona State University, 67.8% of the student body is white and 77.4% of the communication students are white (only 17.7% of communication students are minority students the remaining are either unknown or international). Set againts the number of minority students, the predominance of white students highlights the disparity. While we know of no national study on communication students , we speculate that this is a national trend. Yet, as a discipline, we remain unreflexive about the whiteness of communication studies. Our point is not simply that communication has many more white students than its general demographics would indicate, but to question the ways in which the study of communication continues to empower white people, while at the same time unwittingly remaining unresponsive to the needs of the rest of society.
Ashcraft and Allen (2003) argue that introductory textbooks are one important venue for understanding the ways that race functions in the communication discipline, in that they “disseminate a field’s canon of knowledge” (p.7) and socialize graduate students and faculty members who teach from them. Thus, they not only reflect the discipline but also help reproduce it. Ashcraft and Allen’s content analysis of organizational communication textbooks led to the indentification of the following themes in the treatment of race:
1. Race is separate, singular concept that is relevant only under certain circumstances.
2. Race is relevant insofar as it involves cultural differences, which can be identified, valued, and managed to improve organizational performance.
3. All cultural differences are synonymous with international variations.
4. Racial discrimination is a function of personal bias, interpersonal misunderstanding, organizational failure to manage cultural differences, and disproportianate demographics.
While these observations are specific to the field of organizational communication, they seem to hold true for theory and research in interpersonal communication, intercultural communication, and rhetoric the arcas we are most familiar with and are likely to hold true in other areas as well. The common thread here is the focus on communication at the individual level, with little regard for the larger contexts in which power and historical relations might enter. In a reflection of Ancient Greek concerns about communication, we can see that contmeporary communication concerns center around ways to help white people deal with racial difference, whether for organizational effectiveness, interpersonal efectiveness, or managing differences. Interpersonal communication skills (e.g., studies identifying components of communication competence) are presented in such a way that they seem to help white individuals deal with others who are assumed to be white.
Studies of intercultural contact reflect this same centering of whiteness (Cooks, 2001). Halualani et al. (2004) note that “the most glaring short coming in intercultural contact literature is the predominant focus on majority (or white/European American) attitudes toward interacting with minority groups” (p.274). Again, communication studies clearly is in the service of white people at the expense of racial others.
Our call here is for communication scholars to begin taking our racialized history and contemporary context seriously, so that we can begin to service the diversity of U.S. society and its future outlook. As long as we ignore race or work primarily to serve the needs of white Americans, our undergraduate communication major, graduate students, and faculty will become increasingly isolated from engaging contemporary social issues, whether in health care, education, business, or elswhere. It is only “by examining the racial
(Salam)
Conversations about race in the United States at the beginning of the 21st century reflect the contradictory status of race in society. On the one hand, the conversations seem to be ubiquitous-discussions of affirmative action policies in hiring and education, equal access to voting during national and state elections, and persistent racial disparities are often in the news. In the other hand, conversations about race in workplace and social setting often are uneasy or simply absent. Examinations of the racial dimensions of our own discipline ore no different. On the one hand, adversement seek faculty of color, but, on the other hand, there is little discussion about how communication is raced, what this means, and the implications of this racialization for students and faculty.
There are at least three ways to view the relationship between communications and race:
1. Racial histories and demographics inform and reflect communication behaviors
2. The conceptualization and study of communication is raced-historically and contemporaneously
3. The field of communication is raced
In this essay, we’ll first define what we mean by race and then describe these three approaches, focusing primarily on the third.
Scientists today largely have discredited traditional physiological/biological notions of race, noting that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them (Omi & Winant, 1994; Wells, 2002). They, along with communication scholars, emphasize instead the social construction of race and the fluidity of racial categories. For example, scholars have shown how the category “white” evolved over the years in the united states, expanding to include people of Irish, Jewish, and southern European descent-all previosly excluded as not quite white (Brodkin, 1999; Ignatiev, 1995;Jacobson, 1998). Race, then is a social construction, but it has a very real, material impact on our everyday lives. It is a fiction, but it is real and it is this cultural contradiction that undergirds our conversations on race and its place in communication studies.
Communication Behavior Is Raced
A first view of communication as raced examines how racial characteristics inform communication habits. Stated simply, communication is an intensely racialized practice. With whom we communicate with them, and how much we communicate with others follows largely racialized formations. Communication scholars for years accepted that race influences the communication behaviors of “others”, but only racently have we turned the spotlight explicitly on the communication of white people. The research exposes the underlying racial hierarchy and describes how the connection between race and communication for white people largely goes unrecognized (Nakayama & Krizek, 1995). Though people who are not white see that distinctness, dominance, normalcy, and privilege are characteristics of whiteness, and hence influence the communication of white people, white people themselves often do not recognize or see these connections (Bahk & Jandt, 2004)
In their study of student communication at a multiracial campus, Halualani, Chitgopekar, Morrison, and Dodge (2004) highlight the general features of this link between race and communication, reflecting larger societal patterns. That is, those students (like most individuals) largely communicate with other in their own racial group, despite living in an increasingly multiracial/multiethnic society. Individuals do not, however, simply choose to communicate with members of a particular racial or ethnic group. Instead, these communication patterns reflect larger social organizing about where racial groups predominately live and the kinds of workplace encounters they are likely to have, as well as the leisure aspects of our racialized society. In short, we argue that it is imperative to place our communication practices within the context of a highly racialized society in order to better understand everyday communication practices. Yet, to understand why the relationship between race, power, and communication is often obviated, we also need to axamine the historical development of the study of communication.
The Study of Communication Is Raced
A second view suggests that the very study of communication it self is raced. From its origins in 5th century BCE Greece, the study of communication (then called rhetoric) focused almost exclusively on the communication patterns of those in power. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and other were interested in empowering Greek and Roman citizens, although ignoring the ways that communication might help slaves, women, and other noncitizen advocate for their interest, needs, and desires. The practice and study of communication was by and for those already empowered in society (Crowley & Hawhee, 1999; Dues & Brown, 2004).
This elitism was not easily translated into the development of communication studies in the United States. The drive for democratic participation in society was a major motive for the development of “speech” courses for those students who did not come from privileged backgrounds (Cohen,1994). Even today, communication studies is largely missing from elite institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, and Emory, but remains prominents at less elite ones.
We must note, however, that this democratic drive was marked by the racialized society in which it occurred. When the then new land grant institutions were established by the 1862 Morrill Act, public speaking was taught mainly to empower its white male students largely from farming families and other nonelite backgrounds to participate in democratic institutions; the study of communication (speech), meanwhile, remained in largely segregated context.1 The Second Morril Act established “1890s institutions,” which are today known as historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Theses schools, thought undoubtedly important, offered segregated and sometimes second-class educational opportunities for their students.
It is instructive, then, to examine how the study of communication continues to be raced today in our research, teaching, and practice. This examination follows a trend set by other disciplines as well as several subdisciplines within the field of communication. For example, anthropologists have recognized anthropology as currently one of the “least integrated or whitest professions” (Shanklin,2000,p.99). More important, Shanklin goes on to explore the implications of this whiteness that anthropology delivers “inchoate messages about anthropological understanding of race and racism in introductory texts and that anthropologists do not participate actively in public discussion” (p.99).
Similarly, the accrediting Council for Education in the field of journalism and mass communication notes that the standard failed most frequently in accreditation in this disciplines Standard 12 is that which calls for racial integration of faculty and students and the inclusion of women. (De Uriarte, Bodinger-de Uriarte, & Benavides, 2003). The second most failed standard is Standard 3, which calls for diversity in curriculum. Where diverse curriculum exists, it is rarely a required course (pp.vii-viii). In 2000, minorities earned only 25% of all BA degrees and 10% of all MA Degress in U.S journalism programs. Figures remain miniscule for PhDs, now almost universally required for a tenured position as a journalism educator (p.viii).
The Field of Communication is Raced
Can the same be said for the field of communication? Are we largely a white profession, white in racial composition of faculty and students, white in curiculum, white in research interests and theorizing, and largely silent when it comes to the public debate on race and communication?2
Taking a quick look at intitutional data on communication majors highlights the whiteness of our disciplines and its attraction to white students out of proportion to their demographic numbers. We highlight the two institutions at which we currently work. At Temple University, 59.4% of the students are white, but 65.6% of the communications and theater students are white. Ar Arizona State University, 67.8% of the student body is white and 77.4% of the communication students are white (only 17.7% of communication students are minority students the remaining are either unknown or international). Set againts the number of minority students, the predominance of white students highlights the disparity. While we know of no national study on communication students , we speculate that this is a national trend. Yet, as a discipline, we remain unreflexive about the whiteness of communication studies. Our point is not simply that communication has many more white students than its general demographics would indicate, but to question the ways in which the study of communication continues to empower white people, while at the same time unwittingly remaining unresponsive to the needs of the rest of society.
Ashcraft and Allen (2003) argue that introductory textbooks are one important venue for understanding the ways that race functions in the communication discipline, in that they “disseminate a field’s canon of knowledge” (p.7) and socialize graduate students and faculty members who teach from them. Thus, they not only reflect the discipline but also help reproduce it. Ashcraft and Allen’s content analysis of organizational communication textbooks led to the indentification of the following themes in the treatment of race:
1. Race is separate, singular concept that is relevant only under certain circumstances.
2. Race is relevant insofar as it involves cultural differences, which can be identified, valued, and managed to improve organizational performance.
3. All cultural differences are synonymous with international variations.
4. Racial discrimination is a function of personal bias, interpersonal misunderstanding, organizational failure to manage cultural differences, and disproportianate demographics.
While these observations are specific to the field of organizational communication, they seem to hold true for theory and research in interpersonal communication, intercultural communication, and rhetoric the arcas we are most familiar with and are likely to hold true in other areas as well. The common thread here is the focus on communication at the individual level, with little regard for the larger contexts in which power and historical relations might enter. In a reflection of Ancient Greek concerns about communication, we can see that contmeporary communication concerns center around ways to help white people deal with racial difference, whether for organizational effectiveness, interpersonal efectiveness, or managing differences. Interpersonal communication skills (e.g., studies identifying components of communication competence) are presented in such a way that they seem to help white individuals deal with others who are assumed to be white.
Studies of intercultural contact reflect this same centering of whiteness (Cooks, 2001). Halualani et al. (2004) note that “the most glaring short coming in intercultural contact literature is the predominant focus on majority (or white/European American) attitudes toward interacting with minority groups” (p.274). Again, communication studies clearly is in the service of white people at the expense of racial others.
Our call here is for communication scholars to begin taking our racialized history and contemporary context seriously, so that we can begin to service the diversity of U.S. society and its future outlook. As long as we ignore race or work primarily to serve the needs of white Americans, our undergraduate communication major, graduate students, and faculty will become increasingly isolated from engaging contemporary social issues, whether in health care, education, business, or elswhere. It is only “by examining the racial
Categories:
COMMUNICATION as RACED
Postingan
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar