This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Barbara]On: 07 February 2014, At: 11:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Ethnic and Racial StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20

Constructing racial differencethrough group talk: an analysisof white focus groups' discussionof racial profilingSharla AlegriaPublished online: 10 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Sharla Alegria (2014) Constructing racial difference through grouptalk: an analysis of white focus groups' discussion of racial profiling, Ethnic and RacialStudies, 37:2, 241-260, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2012.716519

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2012.716519

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Constructing racial difference through

group talk: an analysis of white focus

groups’ discussion of racial profiling

Sharla Alegria

(First submission March 2010; First published September 2012)

AbstractOvertly racist statements are socially and politically unacceptable in theUSA. Yet black people in the USA continue to experience discriminationand prejudice at both the individual and institutional levels. This paperexamines white people’s talk about race in focus groups from theNorth Carolina Traffic Violation Study. The participants discussed raceobliquely, by talking about hypothetical behaviour related to crime andpolice profiling while largely avoiding direct mention of race. At the sametime focus group members voice different expectations for white peopleand black people. By differentiating between behaviours expected fromindividuals perceived to belong to different racial groups, they repro-duced racial difference. Focus group members legitimized racial profilingand did so using language that was largely ‘colour-blind’ and sociallyacceptable by attributing the disproportionately high rate of stops forblack drivers to ostensibly non-racial factors. The groups used mostlycolour-blind language, but the result was racializing discourse.

Keywords: racial difference; interaction; racial profiling; racism; racialization;

focus groups.

Introduction

Research on racism and race-related talk has demonstrated thatpublicly displaying racist attitudes is unacceptable, although the samenorms do not apply to private talk (Myers 2005; Bonilla-Silva 2006;Picca and Feagin 2007). Racist statements are socially unacceptableand racial discrimination in the areas of employment, lending andhousing is illegal. Yet, racial inequality persists. The majority of white

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2014Vol. 37, No. 2, 241�260, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2012.716519

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

people in the USA now disagrees with biological racist accounts butalso opposes government programmes designed to aid black peopleand reduce the race gap in income, educational attainment, wealth andother areas (Kluegel 1990; Bobo and Charles 2009). Studies haveshown clear evidence of negative attitudes towards black people heldby employers, realtors, landlords and bankers (Pager and Quillian2005; Pager 2007; Pager and Karafin 2009; Roscigno, Karafin andTester 2009). Americans claim to be opposed to racial discrimination,do not consider themselves to be racist, and do not openly believesome races to be innately inferior to others; yet, the preponderance ofevidence suggests that racial discrimination occurs regularly and inways that lead to systematic disadvantages for people of colour.

Social science researchers have defined types of racism that describesystems, structures and interactional styles that denigrate peopleof colour and result in privilege for white people (see Bobo andKluegel 1993; Fiske 1998; Sears and Henry 2003; Bonilla-Silva 2006;Picca and Feagin 2009). Bonilla-Silva (2006, p. 2) contends that whitepeople have developed ‘explanations � which have ultimately becomejustifications � for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate themfrom any responsibility for the status of people of color.’ He calls theseexplanations colour-blind racism. Colour-blind racism, according toBonilla-Silva (2006, p. 7), is an ideology that allows white people toattribute racial inequality to non-racial dynamics � particularly by‘rearticulate[ing] elements of traditional liberalism’ while preservingthe racial status quo and believing in equality of opportunity.

Bonilla-Silva (2006) uses interviews to examine how white people talkabout race. While he emphasizes interactions, his method, one-on-oneinterviews, limits his analysis of interaction. Instead he demonstrates aset of techniques that interviewees use to talk about race without usingspecifically racial language. He shows that colour-blind race talk is usedto deny the significance of race and the systematic workings of racialinequality. I examine public conversation among all white focus groupparticipants about racial profiling by police and ask how racializationoperates in publically acceptable, colour-blind race talk. Since I usefocus groups rather than one-on-one interviews I am able to study racetalk situated in interaction, filling a gap left by Bonilla-Silva’s method.Focusing on interaction allows me to examine how group membersreact to statements about race and examine the push and pull of theconversations towards or away from colour-blind language. I am able toexamine how the groups co-create meaning around race when they arepublicly accountable for the language they use. My study more closelyreflects the conditions of everyday speech than does an interview study.

In this paper I examine the reproduction of racial difference inconversations where the speakers use almost exclusively colour-blindlanguage. I do this by analysing white Americans’ talk about racial

242 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

profiling. Data for this study come from two focus groups about racialprofiling held in North Carolina in 2000. At the turn of the century,the debate over racial profiling was the key civil rights issue in theUSA. Affirmative Action has been the only other civil rights issue toreceive similar public and legislative attention in the last few decades.My approach focuses on interactions and processes that reproduceracial difference. I show that the focus groups use language thatreproduces racial difference discursively and has implications forlegitimizing racial profiling by police. The respondents voice beha-vioural and geographic expectations for black people that differentiatethem from white people and legitimize heightened police surveillance,all while attributing the behavioural expectations and heightenedpolice surveillance to non-racial dynamics.

Race and racism

Sociological literature understands race to be socially constructed. Mygoal in this study is to demonstrate part of a process whereby sociallyconstructed racial categories gain meaning and consequences. I use theterms ‘white people’ and ‘black people’ to refer to these socially salientgroups, and I do not mean to imply any innate, inherent or essentialcharacteristic for group membership. It is important to note that thereis no consistent marker that differentiates race groups. People whoare considered white may have darker skin than some people who areconsidered black, or vice versa. Geographic boundaries used to assignrace are unreliable as national boundaries change and people emigratefrom one part of the world to another. Racial categories are entirelyconstructed, and in order to maintain racial difference race must beconstantly reproduced in interactions (Fields 1990).

Furthermore, it is not my intent to single out white people forholding racist attitudes. I understand racism as part of a racialstructure that cannot be separated from the accomplishment of racialdifference. Bonilla-Silva (1997, p. 476) argues ‘racial practices thatreproduce racial inequality in contemporary America (1) are increas-ingly covert, (2) are embedded in normal operations of institutions,(3) avoid direct racial terminology, and (4) are invisible to mostwhites.’ Bobo and Charles (2009, p. 255) argue that most whiteAmericans ‘endorse broad goals of integration, equality, and equaltreatment without regard to race’ and incorporate these ideals into a‘colorblind identity’ even though they tend not to perceive ‘structuraland race-discrimination-based barriers to black advancement’. Yet,Myers (2005), Bonilla-Silva (2006) and Picca and Feagin (2007) havedemonstrated that, under certain conditions, many white Americansmake statements demonstrating racist attitudes. Making racist state-ments does not necessarily mean that they do not believe in the goal of

Constructing racial difference through group talk 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

racial equality or that they even recognize those attitudes as racist.As Feagin (2010) argues, many white Americans understand whitepeople to be generally virtuous with little awareness of the acts ofracism they perform. This literature suggests that many white peopleact and speak in ways that discursively reinforce racial inequalitywithout recognizing the moral implications of their words and actions.Regardless of whether or not they are aware, the consequence is racistdiscourse.

I am following Bonilla-Silva (1997) in understanding racismthrough the viewpoint of racialization, which refers to the outcomeof a process wherein racial meaning is newly extended to a relation-ship, practice or group. He argues that ‘races are the effect of racialpractices of opposition (‘‘we’’ versus ‘‘them’’) at the economic,political, social, and ideological levels’ (Bonilla-Silva 1997, p. 472).Bonilla-Silva’s understanding of races as the effect of practicessuggests an ongoing process, but his explanation of races as theoutcome of racialization suggests a more static end product. Racia-lization, for my purpose, is the process of extending, re-enforcing, orrevising racial meaning to a relationship, practice or group. I believethis understanding is more consistent with an emphasis on process,practices, and historically and locally situated racial meanings (seeBonilla-Silva 1997).

Bonilla-Silva (1997, p. 474) uses the terms racism and racialideology to refer to ‘the segment of an ideological structure of asocial system that crystallizes racial notions and stereotypes.’ More-over, ‘[t]his ideology is not simply a ‘‘superstructural’’ phenomenon(a mere reflection of the racialized system), but becomes theorganizational map that guides actions of racial actors. It becomesas real as the racial elements it organizes’ (Bonilla-Silva 1997, p. 474).By collapsing racism and racial ideology, Bonilla-Silva understandsracial inequality as part of the racial structure. In other words, racismis not separate from the notions and stereotypes about race thatserve as a map for racial actors. I adapt Bonilla-Silva’s argument bytaking an interactional approach to understanding categorization andviewing racialization as an ongoing process accomplished in interac-tions between racial actors. In this study I analyse that process as itunfolds in conversations between racial actors.

Difference and interaction

Fields (1990) argues that the accomplishment of racism results fromracial ideologies that we all act out every day. She writes: ‘If race liveson today, it does not live on because we have inherited it from ourforebears of the seventeenth century or the eighteenth or nineteenth,but because we continue to create it today’ (Fields 1990, p. 117).

244 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

She argues that there is no straight and inevitable line from theconditions of slavery in the USA to current conditions of racialinequality; rather, we continue to reproduce inequality through ourinteractions. Racial ideology comes from and contributes to the toolspeople use to understand their lives; these ideologies shape the waysthat individuals interact and are shaped by the interactions they havewith others (Fields 1990).

Race and racial inequality are interactional accomplishments actedout and performed by individuals behaving according to interactionalnorms (West and Fenstermaker 1995). To the extent that race issocially important, individuals are accountable for acting as othersexpect members of their race category to act (West and Fenstermaker1995). Accountability in this context means that individuals who donot behave in expected ways or hold expected attitudes based on race,gender and class norms may be asked to explain their unexpectedattitudes or behaviours. As West and Fenstermaker (1995, p. 24)argue, ‘the accomplishment of race (or gender) does not necessarilymean ‘‘living up’’ to normative conceptions of attitudes and activitiesappropriate to a particular race category; rather, it means engaging inaction at the risk of race assessment.’ Race, class and genderboundaries are reproduced in interactions as individuals demonstrateattitudes and actions that are consistent with their perceived categoryand risk having their competence as social actors questioned whenthey do not. West and Fenstermaker (1995, p. 24) further argue, ‘theaccomplishment of race renders the social arrangements based on racenormal and natural’. The accomplishment of race as ‘normal andnatural’ obscures the systematic production of racial inequality.

Interaction in context is key to this theory: difference is accom-plished as individuals are accountable for acting and appearingin ways that are normatively consistent with the gender/race/classcategory to which they are understood to belong. Since the biologicalbasis for racialization is non-existent, categorization ought to beunderstood as perceived and enforced by others and the self. Sincecategorization is subject to change across a variety of contexts,including time and place, socially salient categories must be under-stood as accomplished in context.

Methods

This study uses focus groups to examine the communicative interactionsof white people in public conversations about a racially loaded topic.The advantage of focus groups over individual interviews is that theyallow the researcher to examine interactions among participants(Morgan 1997). Thus, focus groups allow me to analyse the interac-tional process of accountability and reproduction of group difference.

Constructing racial difference through group talk 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Because focus groups require that participants interact, they allow theresearcher to examine complex behaviours and motivations, particu-larly as participants ask each other questions and give explanations(Morgan 2004). Whereas interviews require intimacy and a sense ofprivate, non-judgemental conversation, focus group participants areconfronted by unfamiliar others who are not necessarily working tounderstand their thoughts, feelings and actions. As such, participantsare more socially accountable than they are in one-on-one interviewswhere the interviewer attempts to provide a safe space for therespondent. In this sense, focus groups happen in public. Focus groupsare ideal for this study for two reasons. First, they have a more publiccharacter than interviews, which means that participants are accoun-table for using publically acceptable speech. Second, they are interac-tional and thus more closely approximate the real world processes bywhich race is produced and reproduced. By using focus groups I canobserve interactions between group members where Bonilla-Silva(2006) could not. Myers (2005) and Picca and Feagin (2007) use reportsof statements made privately by individuals who did not know that theywere being studied and thus were not accountable for the norms ofpublic speech.

Early stages of data analysis revealed that the structure of talk, thatis how the conversations moved within and between topics andspeakers, was in some ways even more important than what wassaid. In order to be systematically attentive to these shifts and twistsI broke the conversations down into turns at talk that includeeverything one speaker says before another speaker begins. I thencoded and analysed turns at talk. I present turns numbered chron-ologically in order to demonstrate the flow of the conversations.I observed themes emerging sometimes in one turn but often over thecourse of several turns as participants questioned and supported eachothers’ statements.

Data

I rely on secondary data of two focus groups conducted with whiteNorth Carolina residents who had been stopped for speeding by NorthCarolina police in the previous year. The original research team fromNorth Carolina State University conducted these focus groups inpartnership with the North Carolina police as part of an effort toinvestigate racial profiling. The focus groups took place in Winston-Salem and Wilmington in 2000. Wilmington and Winston-Salem arecomparably sized small cities. Wilmington is in the former plantationagriculture region, while Winston-Salem is in a more manufacturing-based region with a smaller black population. Both cities are raciallysegregated and contain poor and middle-class black neighbourhoods.

246 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Focus group conversations lasted approximately two hours. Theresearch team ensured that men, women and a diversity of ageswere evenly represented in each group. A professional, white malemoderator asked both groups questions about attitudes towardspolice, police practices and racial profiling.

These focus groups occurred when racial profiling was at theforefront of conversation about police work � it was the civil rightsissue at the time. In 1999, police in New Jersey made national newswhen they were formally investigated and indicted for falsifying stoprecords to cover up racial discrimination (Meeks 2000). In response tothis and additional evidence of racial profiling, members of the USSenate proposed a bill calling for data collection on traffic stopsnationwide. The bill did not pass, but a number of states, includingNorth Carolina, collected these data.

These focus groups are an especially rich data source to examineracial ideologies and discourse because the conversations were mostlyabout views of and interactions with police. Race enters these focusgroups primarily in terms of the dominant racial politics of that time.The moderator encouraged participants to discuss race, but in practicethey did this by talking about hypothetical behaviour related to crimeand police profiling. Thus, it is an ideal setting and historical momentto examine racialized speech and colour-blind language.

I analysed the conversation by turns at talk and examined how turnsand topics were linked. This allowed me to view the conversations asinteractional processes more than the sum of connected statements.I coded turns based on the sentiments they voiced regarding race,racism, racial profiling and police work. The Winston-Salem focusgroup contains 542 turns at talk and the Wilmington group contains679 turns at talk for a total of 1,221 turns. I use pseudonyms to protectthe confidentiality of group participants. There are some turns where itis unclear who is speaking, and in these cases I employ a pseudonymmarked with an asterisk. However, my analysis focuses on what wassaid and how turns are connected rather than who was speaking.

I identify three different ways in which the topic of race is managedin the groups. First, it is avoided. In these cases the moderator or agroup member will direct the conversation towards race and someonewill respond with a comment about an unrelated topic. In these cases,a comment about racial profiling quickly leads to a discussion ofgeography or police sexuality instead. Second, when adequatelypushed, the groups do discuss race and engage in race talk � muchof which, though not all, denies the significance of race or racism.Third, race enters these conversations as difference through the useof phrases like ‘us’ and ‘them’ to describe white people and blackpeople.

Constructing racial difference through group talk 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Findings and analysis

Much of the race talk I examine is what Bonilla-Silva termed colour-blind. In interviews with white and black college students andworking-class adults, Bonilla-Silva (2006) finds that white peoplework to avoid talking about race. When they cannot avoid it theyemploy a variety of linguistic techniques to avoid revealing theirnegative attitudes towards black people. He describes these moves asverbal pirouettes that may include incoherent speech or failure toanswer direct questions. I observe focus group participants using manyof the strategies that Bonilla-Silva (2006) identifies: avoiding thesubject, incoherent speech, not answering direct questions, blamingblack people for racism, and attributing racial inequality to non-racialdynamics.

Avoiding race

The moderator actively encouraged participants to discuss racialprofiling as one of the goals of the focus groups. He asked questionsabout police treatment and profiling in general that suggested racialprofiling, but the groups did not respond by discussing race until theyare pushed. For instance, the moderator directly asked the groupwhich types of people were more likely to be stopped by the police.

411. Moderator: . . . Tell me a little bit more about that, are theretypes of people that are more likely to be pulled over.412. Linda*: I think that there are types of cars. You don’t generallyfind criminals in minivans with car seats. I mean, I guess.413. Moderator: The police are less likely to . . .414. Harry*: Pull over a family car, I would think, then a sports car.415. Moderator: So sports cars, yes, family cars no.416. Sylvia*: I would have to agree with that.

Linda did not answer the moderator’s question; instead she shifted theconversation from profiling people to profiling cars. The groupcontinued the conversation about car types rather than returning tothe moderator’s question. The moderator asked the question twicemore before someone mentioned race.

417. Moderator: Okay, the vehicle, what about the driver? Are therecertain types of drivers that are more likely to be pulled over do youthink?418. Paul*: Yes419. Moderator: Tell me. Let me make a list up here. Tell me thetypes of drivers more likely to be pulled over.

248 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

420. Paul*: Young black males.421. Ester*: Young males.422. Moderator: What else.423. Simon*: I think the executive types that look like they are,I don’t know a fancy car.424. Rachel*: A car full of young black males.425. Kurt*: People that don’t fit the vehicle, too

The group only discussed race when pushed by the moderator. Evenwhen Paul mentioned race, Ester modified his comment to excluderace before Rachel brought race back in several comments later. Theyalso mentioned wealthy drivers in fancy cars and ‘people that do notfit the vehicle’. This type of discussion came up in both groups andsuggests that group members have expectations for the types of peoplewho drive certain types of cars.

When a group member did bring up race, another group membersometimes changed the subject, as Ester did above. In anotherexample, Orin, the only respondent who repeatedly challenged racistdiscourse in his group, finished telling a lengthy story about beingcaught in a ticketing trap with several other drivers. The drivers in hisstory joined forces to hire a lawyer to fight their tickets. When Orinfinished his story the moderator asked if certain types of drivers aremore likely to be stopped, and Orin stated that race matters. Martinqualified Orin’s assertion by suggesting that race only matters in someplaces. Then a third respondent, Pam, changed the subject away fromrace entirely. Moreover, Pam began the topic change with a statementthat sounded like it was referring back to a previous comment, ‘in thatsituation’. The ‘situation’ she referenced was Orin’s lengthy story aboutbeing stopped by police and treated in a way that he felt was unfair.

324. Orin: . . . All four of us went over and sat and drank coffee andtalked about � who is making the money on this, the judge, thehighway patrolman, who is making it. If we don’t cooperate I knowwho is going to make money. The insurance company. So we reallydidn’t have a whole lot of say.325. Moderator: I understand that is a difficult situation. But youdon’t think it was because of your age there, it was just the way itwas set up? I really need to know about this and this is one of theplaces I need to be rude a little bit because we still have lots to cover.I want to know is this a complete list. Is this, are these the ways orthe qualities of a driver that will make them more likely to be pulledover: violation, type of car, color, age.326. Orin: I think probably race.327. Martin*: Depending upon the location.328. Pam*: Don’t you think in that situation that sometimes it is sex

Constructing racial difference through group talk 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

because young girls driving cars and officers pull them over wantingto know who the girl was or carding them to find out their nameand address?

Following Pam’s change of topic the group discussed male policeofficers looking for attractive women to stop for eleven turns, farlonger than they had discussed race up to this point. The groupmembers seemed more comfortable and more interested in discussingpolice using their authority to objectify and harass women thandiscussing how law enforcement treats people of colour. While groupmembers were not eager to discuss Orin’s statement about race, theyjoined quickly to discuss Pam’s statement about gender even thoughher statement was disconnected from the statements preceding it.

Race talk about racial profiling

Both groups did eventually engage in conversations about whetherracial profiling happens. In the Winston-Salem group the moderatorhad to ask specifically about black people being profiled before thegroup would discuss it.

345. Moderator: What I want to get to here is there has been a lot ofattention recently paid to racial profiling sometimes called drivingwhile black and what I would like to ask you is do you think thepolice are more likely to pull over a black driver than a white one?

These conversations often involved denial, qualification or justifica-tion. Racial profiling was prominent in the news at the time and wouldhave been difficult to avoid. When group members denied racialprofiling, they did so with ready explanations for its appearance.In other words, they would claim that something other than race wasthe cause of police stops, often stating or implying that any racedifference in the rate of stops was actually unrelated to race per se.

549. Cynthia*: I think that they go by the car a lot. I mean if you areon the highway going 70, you can’t really tell if there is a blond inthere, especially [with] tinted windows. You don’t really know if it isblack person. So, I think a lot of times, the type of car.

It is not clear in this statement whether Cynthia believes black peopleare more likely to be stopped but she had an alternative explanationfor the appearance of racial profiling. Racial profiling was also deniedby arguing that police simply stop people who are committing crimes;the logic being that if black people are stopped more it is because theycommit more crimes.

250 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

441. Patricia: On no particular, I mean, it can just be one that, youknow the criminal type that might be dealing drugs or anything likethat and each time he catches them well ‘‘we are caught more thananybody else,’’ but it is because they are doing more than anybodyelse. That is the way I feel.

In these accounts, police are cleared of any improprieties on racialgrounds. Racial inequality in the rate of police stops is not theproblem � rather more black people are driving ‘suspicious’ cars orviolating the law.

Participants stated or implied that black people are more likely to bestopped by police, but argued that the phenomenon is not aswidespread as it seemed. The media received condemnation fromboth groups for giving racial profiling undue attention and making itseem unrealistically widespread.

606. Ray*: . . . whenever you have crimes of any kinds, whether it ison the road or drugs or whatever, which gets publicized more, if it isa bunch kids or white men and everything or white people, they arebusted for a major drug bust of white people, it is not going to bepublicized as much as it will if it were black. You turn [on the] radio,you turn the local news or TV and all you hear is about this blackperson getting busted for this, or this black person getting, youwhatever, and it is always the publicity is a lot more. . . . they showmore of the black[s] on TV and I believe it is a media thing.

Group members used the terms ‘sensationalization’ (612. James:I think it’s sensationalization, a little bit over blown), ‘trying to sella story’ (640: Rhonda*: the media is trying to sell a story), ‘blown up’(659. Jane: I guess as far as it being blown up so around here) and ‘outof proportion’ (445. Sam*: I mean the media tends to blow so muchout of proportion) to describe the media coverage of racial profiling,implying that stories of racial profiling are media hype that do notreflect real inequality.

The groups also qualified their responses by isolating racism as anact of individual police officers, or locating racism equally in blackpeople and white people. Gloria explained that racial profiling is notsomething that happens because of police department policy, it is aproblem of individual racist police officers.

431. Gloria: I want to back up and say here again it depends on theindividual. I don’t think you can say the whole department or thewhole police force, I think it is maybe certain individuals. That theyare doing their own thing as far as that goes. It is not a policy buttheir own feeling, you know they are following through and doing it.

Constructing racial difference through group talk 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

It doesn’t mean that the whole department is racist because you haveone person . . .

By locating racial profiling in the misdeeds of individuals, the problemof racial inequality shifts from being a system of racial disadvantage toan isolated problem of individuals. If racial disparity in police stops isa result of individual racist cops, then correcting the problem is assimple as firing those cops.

In addition to arguing that individual police officers might be racist,both groups argued that black people were guilty of ‘reverse racism’.This quote from Tim exemplifies the argument made in both groupsthat black people are racist against white people:

590. Tim: I think that I saw, part of the problem right there, by sayingthat is reverse racial, if somebody is racist, automatically if you sayracist, you automatically think white against black and that, youthink, I think totally wrong. Racist or racism, it exists in all, youknow, no matter who you are. There are just as many people that areblack who cannot stand somebody just because they are white.Maybe you are white and you can’t stand Oriental, you know, youdon’t like a red head, or whatever it is. It doesn’t matter, I’m sorry,I’m just . . . no offense. I just think that automatically that everywhereacross the United States that that has been put out there so hard thatautomatically you are racists and that is a white against a black.

Tim’s comment reflects a common-sense understanding of racism.Not only is racism divorced from power in his statement, it is equatedwith dislike for people based on hair colour. When the term racismcan be used to describe any kind of ‘dislike’ it ceases to have valuefor identifying and demonstrating systematic, long-standing racialinequality. The logic follows that if black people are just as racistagainst white people as white people are against black people, theneveryone is guilty � and if everyone is guilty then everyone is equal.

Both groups offered justifications for racial profiling. They arguedthat black people are more likely to commit crimes, particularly drug-related crimes, so targeting black people is good police work. Claude,in Wilmington, exemplified this argument:

429. Moderator: Good list, good list, guys. Great. Young males, acarful of young black males, young males in general, executive types,people who don’t fit the car . . .[A group member emphasizes agreement that people who don’t fitthe car will be stopped.]433. Moderator: And teens. These are sort of groups that have atendency to get pulled over. Why? Why do you think that, let’s start

252 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

at the top, young black males. Why are they more likely to get pulledover?*434. Dean: Because they are stereotyped. A lot of media . . .*435. Phil: Total racial profiling.436. Claude: That is just straight up generic textbook racialprofiling that they are there. They are in the type of vehicle andthey are the type of individual that is more likely to commit a crimebased on our experiences as law enforcement officers and ourwhatever with the media. So, we are going to pull them now anddeter that crime from happening or catch them in a crime, I wouldthink. That is just kind of common sense.

Similarly, Justin in Winston-Salem argued that ‘inner city blacks’ aremore likely to commit crimes so police should be profiling them:

505. Justin: . . . The inner city black has a greater chance ofcommitting a crime of some sort so why shouldn’t police be lookingfor them.

Justin, Claude and others did not view racial profiling as a problem;instead they saw it as intelligent use of law enforcement experience.Meanwhile, studies have shown that, while minorities are more likelyto be stopped by police, they are not more likely to be driving withcontraband (Engel and Calnon 2004; for North Carolina, see Warrenand Tomaskovic-Devey 2009). The disproportionate rate of drug-related charges against black people is more effect than cause of racialprofiling.

Accomplishing race difference

Throughout both conversations participants made statements signal-ling and demarcating racial difference. This is clearest in their use ofthe terms ‘us’ and ‘we’ to refer to white people and ‘them’ to refer toblack people. Before the conversations turned to race, participantsdiscussed their interactions with police. In this part of the conversation‘they’ were the police and ‘we’ were civilians. Consider the followingstatement segments taken from the beginning of the conversationsbefore the groups discussed race: ‘I think as a whole, they keep us inline . . .’; ‘I support the police. They do the things we are not able todo . . .’; ‘They keep the order and that is important to do . . .’. However,when the groups discussed race ‘we’ become white people and policewhile ‘they’ become black people. The following statements were madetowards the end of the conversations: ‘We’ pull cars over.’; ‘We pullthat car over and it is full of drugs or whatever.’; ‘They are suspicious.’;‘They [are] harping about slavery. We had nothing to do with it.’;

Constructing racial difference through group talk 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

‘It is easier to profile them [referring to black people in poorneighbourhoods] and say we can catch a bunch of crooks becausewe know they are going to be out here on the street doing business.’ Inother words, ‘we’ are white and ‘they’ are black, and the two aredistinct. During the conversation about racial profiling, respondentsused ‘we’ to include the police. There are instances when the word‘they’ continued to be used to identify police even towards the end ofthe conversation, but the shift of inclusion is striking. Group memberslargely identified police and their legal authority with white people,while identifying black people as the target of that legal authority.

The understandings of place and criminality demonstrated in theseconversations signal an accomplishment of racial difference that hasconcrete consequences. The group members repeatedly stated thatidentifying people who look out of place is an important element ofpolice work:

381. Jake*: Say your black male driver and your Mercedes andLexus thing. If he is in the right place or rather the wrong place forhim, they would be more apt to pull him.In other words, violating particular norms associated with a racecategory constitutes grounds for police to suspect individuals ofcriminal activity.360. Paula*: I think any of this can go with either black or Hispanicor white. If I go over into east Winston and I’m driving a Mercedesand I’m in east Winston, I’m a female and I’m there at 7 o’clock atnight I would think I would be suspicious no more than if a blackperson, male in particular, would be coming over into Clemmons.

White people and black people are described as geographicallyseparate to the point that merely crossing that geographic dividemakes one suspect:

341. Lynn*: Yeah. Say you have got a guy, certain people are notgoing to fit in the projects in Winston-Salem. They wouldn’t begoing there for just any reason a lot of times because that is the waythe police might see it.

Lynn implied that white men would be stopped if police spotted themin an area that is predominately poor and black. Moreover, thisstatement indicates that police would expect the person who does not‘fit in’ would be going to the ‘projects’ with criminal intent. The‘projects’, places where poor black people live, were consistentlyassociated with drugs, even referred to as ‘drug areas’ at least once inboth conversations. In other words, white people are suspect forentering ‘drug areas’ and black people are suspect for leaving them.

254 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

While white people are suspect in black neighbourhoods, blackpeople are suspect everywhere. Black people are ‘out of place’ in whiteneighbourhoods and they are suspect in black neighbourhoodsbecause these neighborhoods are ‘drug areas’. This is evident inCindy’s description of police work:

48. Cindy*: They patrol areas where there are potential problems.They try to stop things, you know, drug areas they drive throughand try to prevent things from happening.

Simply being categorized as black makes one suspicious. Interactionsacross racial categories are also suspicious since drugs and blackpeople are so deeply connected in the minds of these white respondents.

The respondents referred to predominantly black areas as ‘theprojects’, ‘drug areas’, ‘low income areas’, ‘black town’ and ‘innercity’, while they used proper names of neighbourhoods to refer topredominantly white areas. The only reference to middle-class blackneighbourhoods explained that white people in these neighbourhoodswould be stopped and searched for drugs:

633. Glenn*: I don’t believe � in my opinion I believe that it is in aneighborhood it depends on what race is predominant. If you havegot a predominantly white neighborhood and you have black male,especially a black male driving through the neighborhood, nomatter what time of day or night . . .634. Moderator: No matter what kind of car?635. Glenn*: No matter what kind of car, they are going to end upgetting pulled. I believe that the opposite to be true also. If it is apredominantly black neighborhood, maybe a middle-class blackneighborhood, and you have a white guy pulling through, the firstthing they are going to do is to pull that guy and check for drugsbecause I’ve had some friends that that has happened to. Go to picksomebody up for a ball game or something and get pulled for drugsand nothing be on them or in the car or anything.

In this comment and others like it, people who are ‘out of place’should expect to be pulled over. Black men in white neighbourhoodsshould expect to be pulled over because they have violated a spatialnorm, while white people in black neighbourhoods should expect to bepulled over because they have violated an interactional norm, whichmakes them suspect. Group members primarily expected any interac-tions between blacks and whites to involve drugs. When they didmention other reasons for cross-race interactions, the white people inthese circumstances were held accountable for drug-related criminalactivity.

Constructing racial difference through group talk 255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

The respondents made their expectations for race and classcategories visible simultaneously throughout these conversations.They often described predominantly black neighbourhoods in eco-nomic rather than racial terms. Group members could slip betweeneconomic and racial terms to justify racial profiling or to argue that itis related to place and suspicion, not race per se. For respondents,segregation that is simultaneously raced and classed is not cause forsuspicion but the violation of racialized geographic boundaries issuspicious. Poverty and blackness go hand in hand in participants’understandings, and, therefore, they use ‘colour-blind’ language todescribe the economics of neighbourhoods when communicatingsomething about race.

Summary

Group members articulated ‘us’/’them’ distinctions that reflect thecrystallization of racial stereotypes. These crystallized stereotypesprovide the material for understanding and reproducing racialdifference. Most white Americans have only limited interactions withblack Americans, heightening the importance of stereotypes andgeneralizations in their understandings of racial difference (Bonilla-Silva, Goar and Embrick 2006). Meanwhile, behaviours, such asresidential segregation, that limit interactions between white peopleand black people seem natural and normal and reproduce racialdifference in ways that advantage white people while disadvantagingblack people.

Residential segregation, as evidenced in these focus groups, is notsimply separation of white people and black people into differentneighbourhoods; middle-class neighbourhoods with proper names arereserved for white people, whereas impoverished neighbourhoods arereserved for black people. Police stop black people when they enterwhite neighbourhoods because they are ‘out of place’, which is not acrime. Participants expected police to suspect white people in blackneighbourhoods of possessing drugs. In other words, white people whoassociate with black people are accountable for behaviours expectedfrom black people. Residential segregation is an unremarkable fact inthese conversations; while most black people do not live in impover-ished, high-crime areas, participants find it reasonable that blackpeople outside these areas are ‘out of place’ and therefore expect policeto stop them.

Conclusion

According to participants’ accounts, law enforcement’s first priority isto uphold the law, but as the conversations unfold it seems police work

256 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

is also about the maintenance of racial difference. In the earlyconversation about police, ‘they’ have power over ‘us’. Police havethe authority to stop drivers and ‘keep us in line’. As the conversationturns towards race ‘we’ refers to white people and police. Respondentsre-frame the conversation, positing that police stop people for being inthe ‘wrong place’ or appearing ‘suspicious’, but as the conversationunfolds we learn that ‘the wrong place’ is actually the wrong side of aracialized geographic boundary. It becomes clear that the idea thatpolice stop black people because they believe black people are morelikely to possess drugs is hardly different from white authority figuresstopping black people because black people are expected to possessdrugs. Participants express normative conceptions of blackness thatinclude poverty and drug-related criminality. These expectations serveto differentiate racial groups but importantly, if individuals areaccountable for the normative behaviours of their perceived group,then anyone perceived to be black is accountable for poverty and drugpossession.

Both focus groups eventually acknowledge the existence of racialprofiling but deny the phenomenon has real or extensive consequences.Participants make few overtly racist comments but routinely denyracial inequality. By the end of both conversations a meta-storyemerges explaining away racial profiling and legitimizing race-baseddifferential treatment. Participants are able to justify and normalizeincreased police surveillance of black people, especially black men,with mostly colour-blind language stating common-sense understand-ings about their social world.

Racial ideology is the crystallized stereotypes and racial notions thatorganize behaviour for racial actors (Bonilla-Silva 1997). This racialideology is part of the structure of a racialized society. Expectationsfor races, for which racial actors are accountable, simultaneouslyreflect and reproduce the existing, unequal racial structure. The focusgroup conversations I analysed engaged in a process of racialization.Participants used mostly colour-blind language to articulate differ-ences between black and white racial groups, but in the end producedracist discourse. Group members displayed expectations of racialinequality independent from what would be thought of as traditionallyracist attitudes. These expectations were embedded in their under-standing of racial difference. Given this framework, racist attitudes areexpressions of the racial ideology that provides the map to behaviouralexpectations for different races. Thus, racist attitudes can be under-stood as reflections of the underlying racial ideology that guide theongoing process of racialization. Since inequality is already embeddedin the different behavioural expectations that distinguish racializedgroups, the persistence of racial inequality is unsurprising.

Constructing racial difference through group talk 257

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

This study is situated in a particular time and place � the post-civilrights era USA where race is still an important, but conversationallytaboo, vector of inequality. It is likely that different language andideologies will be at work for different groups, places and times.I would not be surprised, however, to find processes of conversationalaccountability, avoidance, coded race talk and colour-blind rationali-zations of inequality in multiple contemporary contexts where explicitracist talk is socially discouraged. In other places or times theavoidance of race talk might not be socially necessary. Future researchwill hopefully examine the interactional production of racial differenceof and by different groups in specific places and times. Such analyseswould reveal the generality of the interactional moves identified in thisstudy.

Racial ideologies are not static insomuch as racialization is anongoing process of building categories that reflect the racial ideologiesof the time. The specific categories and the language used to describeracial actors should be expected to change over time and vary by place.The conversations in these focus groups reflect the racialization thatsupported and reflected slavery and Jim Crow apartheid in the USAand the shifting reproduction of race shaped by the legacy of the civilrights movement and a racist state-led war on drugs at the end of thetwentieth century. White Americans in the South during the Jim Crowera likely would not have avoided racialized language to the degreethat these focus group members did, Northern white people during theJim Crow era would have likely sounded different still. Likewise,racialization was not the same process in former colonies where thecolonizers were the numeric minority but economically, politically andmilitarily dominant.

Racial difference, racial inequality and racism are intricatelyinterwoven, particularly at the level of interaction. This paper hasoffered an understanding of race talk and racialization that links thelegitimization of racial inequality with the reproduction of racialdifference. Overt racism is not necessary to reinforce racial inequality;simply expecting different behaviours and attitudes from white peopleand black people is enough, especially when the behaviours expectedfrom white people are socially valued and those expected from blackpeople are devalued and, worse, criminalized.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Enobong Hannah Branch, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, Joe Feagin, Donileen Loseke, Noriko Milman, Chris M. Smith,Sarah Willie-LeBreton, Robert Zussman, the Narrative ReadingGroup and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

258 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

References

BOBO, LAWRENCE D. and CHARLES, CAMILLE Z. 2009 ‘Race in the American mind:

from the Moynihan report to the Obama candidacy’, Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, vol. 621, no. 1, pp. 243�59

BOBO, LAWRENCE and KLUEGEL, JAMES R. 1993 ‘Opposition to race targeting:

self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes?’, American Sociological Review, vol.

58, no. 4, pp. 443�64

BONILLA-SILVA, EDUARDO 1997 ‘Rethinking racism: toward a structural interpreta-

tion’, American Sociological Review, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 465�80

������ 2006 Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial

Inequality in the United States, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield

BONILLA-SILVA, EDUARDO, GOAR, CARLA and EMBRICK, DAVID 2006 ‘When

whites flock together: the social psychology of white habitus’, Critical Sociology, vol. 32,

nos. 2�3, pp. 229�53

ENGEL, ROBIN SHEPHARD and CALNON, JENNIFER M. 2004 ‘Examining the

influence of drivers’ characteristics during traffic stops with police: results from a national

survey’, Justice Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 49�90

FEAGIN, JOE R. 2010 The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Framing and Counter-Framing,

New York: Routledge

FIELDS, BARBARA JEANNE 1990 ‘Slavery, race and ideology in the United States of

America’, New Left Review, vol. 181, pp. 95�118

FISKE, SUSAN T. 1998 ‘Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination’, in Daniel Gilbert,

Susan T. Fiske and Gardiner Lindzey (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, New York:

McGraw Hill, pp. 357�411

KLUEGEL, JAMES 1990 ‘Trends in whites’ explanations of the black�white gap in

socioeconomic status, 1977�1989’, American Sociological Review, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 512�25

MEEKS, KENNETH 2000 Driving while Black: Shopping Malls, Taxicabs, Sidewalks: How

to Fight Back if You are a Victim of Racial Profiling, New York: Broadway Books

MORGAN, DAVID L. 1997 Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage

������, 2004 ‘Focus groups’, in Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patricia Leavy (eds),

Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford,

pp. 263�85

MYERS, KRISTEN 2005 Racetalk: Racism Hiding in Plain Sight, Lanham, MD: Rowman

and Littlefield

PAGER, DEVAH 2007 Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass

Incarceration, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

PAGER, DEVAH and KARAFIN, DIANA 2009 ‘Bayesian bigot? Statistical discrimina-

tion, stereotypes, and employer decision making’, Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, vol. 621, no. 1, pp. 70�93

PAGER, DEVAH and QUILLIAN, LINCOLN 2005 ‘Walking the talk? What employers

say versus what they do’, American Sociological Review, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 355�80

PICCA, LESLIE HOUTS and FEAGIN, JOE R. 2007 Two-Faced Racism: Whites in the

Backstage and Frontstage, New York: Routledge

ROSCIGNO, VINCENT, KARAFIN, DIANA and TESTER, GRIFF 2009 ‘The

complexities and process of racial housing discrimination’, Social Problems, vol. 56, no. 1,

pp. 49�69

SEARS, DAVID O. and HENRY, P. J. 2003 ‘The origins of symbolic racism’, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 259�75

TREPAGNIER, BARBARA 2006 Silent Racism, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers

WARREN, PATRICIA and TOMASKOVIC-DEVEY, DONALD 2009 ‘Racial profiling

and searches: did the politics of racial profiling change police behavior?’, Criminology and

Public Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 343�69

Constructing racial difference through group talk 259

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

WEST, CANDACE and FENSTERMAKER, SARAH 1995 ‘Doing difference’, Gender and

Society, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 8�37

SHARLA ALEGRIA is a PhD candidate in the Department ofSociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.ADDRESS: Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts,Amherst, MA, 01003 USA.Email: salegria@soc.umass.edu

260 Sharla Alegria

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Bar

bara

] at

11:

19 0

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

014