This is an important, all too unnoticed,book by Paul L. Wachtel, distinguishedprofessor of psychology at City Universityof New York and acting director of theColin Powell Center for Policy Studiesthere. Wachtel brings to the racism dis-cussion his insights as a psychologist andpsychotherapist—as well as a teacherprimarily of minority college students—in identifying factors that promote orimpede change in both personal interac-tions and the larger sociopolitical stage.

By the phrase “in the mind,” Wachtelin no way means to downplay or dismissracism as just a psychological phenome-non. He knows well that psychology mustbe grounded in the realities of race, class,history, and politics. And he is a bona fideantiracist. He is also eloquent, and this iswhy I choose to use many direct quotesfrom his book.

Central to Wachtel’s analysis, as wellas prescription, is the “vicious circle” of hissubtitle. In part the concept refers to socialrealities that many of us, black and white(Wachtel and I fall into the latter catego-ry) are, perhaps understandably, reluctantto acknowledge, openly assert, and acton. Wachtel asserts that, while indis-putably historical and current injusticeshave produced and continue to damageAfrican Americans (albeit to differentdegrees), the behavior and attitudes suchdamage engenders in turn create and per-

petuate further injustice, prejudice, anddiscrimination. While “blaming the vic-tim” is an accusation easy to make, andmany people find that the most comfort-able way to explain racial differences,realities of family structure, crime rates,teenage pregnancy, injurious drug use,welfare dependency, and other behaviorand attitudinal facts exist that, althoughexplainable in terms of institutionalizedracism, also have another dimension andimpact. “Concern about the sensitivitiesof those who have already been hurt con-siderably by years of injustice is under-standable and appropriate,” Wachtelwrites.

But lamentably, this concern hasyielded one more of the ironiesthat beset us in this realm. Whenthose concerned about the sensi-tivities of African Americans havebeen hesitant to address issuesthat can cause pain or be mis-used, the result has been not thatthose issues have been kept outof the realm of public discourse.It has been rather, that thoseissues have become political fod-der for those much less con-cerned about either those sensi-tivities or the frequently difficultand unjust circumstances inwhich many African Americans

JULY–AUGUST 2002 | JOURNAL OF POVERTY LAW AND POLICY 287

A Psychologist’s Insight into RacismRace in the Mind of America: Breaking the Vicious Circle Between Blacks and Whites, byPaul L. Wachtel. Routledge, 1999. 329 pp.

By Chester Hartman

Chester Hartman is executive

director, Poverty and Race

Research Action Council, 3000

Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200,

Washington, DC 20008; 202.

387.9887; chartman@prrac.org.

live. . . . [P. 46] [I]f people ofgoodwill do not address thoseproblems frankly, they willbecome the unchallenged pre-serve of moralistic and raciallydivisive commentators, who areall too ready to exploit theeveryday realities that progres-sive thinkers attempt to fudge. . .. [P. 47] I believe we cannot fullyappreciate the extent to whichtheir rights indeed have beenviolated unless we face squarelythe damage that has in fact beendone. [P. 89]

Relatedly Wachtel brings considerableinsight into the key issue of stereotypingand self-fulfilling prophecies, perhaps themost operational dynamic that keepsblacks and whites divided and estranged.While stereotyping is a universal, evennecessary, human strategy for dealing withthe vast array of stimuli we constantly face,“[it is] particularly mischievous” [P. 128] inthe arena of racial and ethnic categories,Wachtel notes. The negative consequencesof stereotyping perpetuate injustice andsocial division and—the vicious circleagain—“the stereotypic perception altersthe probability that the stereotypic behav-ior anticipated will eventually be forth-coming; and if it is, that will be experi-

enced by the biased perceiver as ‘confir-mation’ of the stereotype.” [P. 132] Heoffers a simple diagram (see below) toillustrate how this mechanism works inthe area of education: how African Amer-icans attempt to cope with pervasive whitestereotyping about their intellectual infe-riority—reactions that produce results (e.g.,test score gaps) that in turn reinforce whitestereotypes.

Another take on the circularity phe-nomenon:

Poor schools, subpar housing, in-adequate medical care, and grimjob prospects are not all that ournation’s disadvantaged face. Theyalso face a culture of despair. Inso many ways every day, they getmessages that they cannot makeit; and those messages are inter-nalized and become self-fulfillingprophecies.... [Y]ear after year somany of them don’t make it thateach new cohort becomes con-vinced that they can’t.... [D]epriva-tions and injustices …[produce]habits and assumptions that ...make it difficult to grab hold [ofopportunity].... [T]he very adapta-tions that enable people to sur-vive harsh circumstances thatgenerations of oppression anddiscrimination have yielded alsomake extricating themselves fromthose conditions or changingthem very difficult. [Pp.71–72]

But at the same time, Wachtel warns,acknowledgment of vicious cycles mustnot ignore history and moral account-ability: “there [are] unambiguously inno-cent and guilty parties” [P. 10] with respectto American racism.

Circularity is also at work at a higherlevel of generality: “ [L]iberals are correctthat family decay, welfare dependency,and a decline in the venerable middle-class virtues are in large measure a prod-uct of poverty, joblessness, racism, andsocial inequity. But family and commu-nity disorganization in turn contributepowerfully to joblessness, poverty, andeven, to some extent, racism.” And withrespect to the key area of crime:

Book Review: Race in the Mind of America

288 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW | JULY–AUGUST 2002

Fear I am not good at

intellectual pursuits

Don’t developintellectual skills

Stereotypes ofintellectualinferiority

Avoidintellectual

pursuits

In addition to its direct andpainful impact on its victims,crime has repercussions onemployment prospects, educa-tional opportunity, housing seg-regation, racial prejudice andultimately the very perpetuationof crime itself. Because crimecontributes to businesses mov-ing out of, or being reluctant tolocate in, inner-city neighbor-hoods, it contributes to the highunemployment rate in thoseneighborhoods (which in turnfurther contributes to the highcrime rate). Crime also affectsthe quality of education kidsreceive in school. The violenceand weapons that have becomea part of life in many inner-cityschools are bound to be a dis-traction to both teachers and stu-dents.... [P. 195] [H]igh blackcrime rates assuredly do exacer-bate existing prejudices, givingthem an anchor that increasesthe difficulty in rooting themout. [P. 198]

Wachtel also observes that

forms of separatism and solidaritythat evolved to provide solace inthe face of stresses created indealing with whites may exacer-bate the very distress and alien-ation they are designed to allevi-ate. Thus, when black college stu-dents hang out mostly with otherblacks, a kind of comfort is clear-ly derived. But there is also akind of magnifying of the experi-ence of marginalization—bothbecause relations with whitesnever do get worked out, sincethere is not the contact andprocess necessary to do that, andbecause if one’s identificationremains so centrally as a “blackstudent” rather than as a “Harvardstudent” or a “Michigan student”or what have you, that in itselfheightens the sense that one ispart of an oppressed group ratherthan a privileged group. [P. 188]

Wachtel is equally perceptive aboutthe psychodynamics of most whites:“[N]egative stereotypes of oppressedgroups may be sustained by the very guiltpeople feel about the unfairness of thedisparaged group’s circumstances....” [P.101] Quoting fellow psychologist ElliotAronson, Wachtel states: “If we have donesomething cruel to a person or a group ofpeople, we derogate that person or groupin order to justify our cruelty. If we canconvince ourselves that a group is unwor-thy, subhuman, stupid, immoral, it helpsus to keep from feeling immoral.” [P. 101]And there is a “cognitive tendency to lookfor explanations in the characteristics ofthe individual, and to minimize the con-tribution of circumstance and environ-ment....” Finally “we must add to ourunderstanding of the sources of preju-dice...the influence of historically rootedlies about various groups, current eco-nomic stakes in maintaining inequalities,and psychologically powerful needs tomaintain self-esteem at the expense ofothers....” [P. 139]

Wachtel, while in no way belittlingthe structural aspects of our economy andsocial system that reflect and reproduceracial injustice, at the same time recog-nizes that “the motivations and attitudes ofactual human beings” [P. 31] interact withthese institutional arrangements so as tomake change more difficult. “The empha-sis on discrimination,” Wachtel writes,

enables readily observable dif-ferences in income, educationalattainment, and occupational sta-tus to be addressed in a morefamiliar and reassuring way. Butit can have the unfortunate sideeffect of distracting attentionfrom inequities that create realdifferences in skills and in readi-ness to advance in the educa-tional and occupational world.These inequities—differences ineconomic starting point, schools,neighborhoods, etc., along withthe cultural and attitudinalresponses to those differences ...play an enormous role in main-taining our social inequalities.[P. 185]

Book Review: Race in the Mind of America

JULY–AUGUST 2002 | JOURNAL OF POVERTY LAW AND POLICY 289

Wachtel’s take on “racism” may thusstrike some in the antiracism movement asflabby, but all those working for racialjustice need to seriously consider it. Hecriticizes the facile use of the term “racist”(and “racism”) as overused conversationstoppers. Racists there are aplenty, but “ifthe Bull Connors of the world are no dif-ferent really from you or I or Joe nextdoor, then an unfortunate covert link ofsolidarity is subtly fostered betweenflawed but decent people and peoplewho deserve nothing but contempt.” [P.29] He prefers the concept of “otherness”and “indifference” as key explanations forwhite behavior to blacks. The real crimefor which most white Americans “are mostguilty is indifference, not racism,” hewrites [P. 39]. “Understanding the differ-ence between the two is a crucial step inliberating ourselves from the sterile andunproductive impasse that has character-ized the dialogue on race relations inrecent years.” [P. 38]

So what is to be done? It is of morethan passing interest to take note ofPresident Clinton’s Initiative on Race,announced in the Spring of 1997, in hisUniversity of California–San Diego com-mencement address, as Wachtel likely wascompleting his manuscript. It was a boldgesture–taken in the absence of the kindof crisis that led to creation of the KernerCommission following the 1960s urbanrebellions—from a man whose credentials

on racial issues, particularly for aSoutherner, lent great promise to the ven-ture. When shortly thereafter Clintonappointed the eminent historian JohnHope Franklin to head the initiative’s advi-sory board, the signs were even morepromising. But the initiative turned out tobe a certified dud.1 A staggering numberof forums, town meetings, “dialogues,”“conversations,” and similar gatheringswere generated under the auspices andbanner of the initiative. In other words, awhole lot of talk, a marathon of eventsthat offered little insight into the more rad-ical (in all senses of the word) concept ofinstitutionalized racism and which did lit-tle to advance the kind of understandingat the psychosocial level that Wachtel’sanalysis demands. Those understandingsrequire more than shallow “dialogue.” TheClinton initiative produced a disappoint-ing—appropriately characterized as “tooth-less” by Frank Rich in the New YorkTimes—Report to the President from theAdvisory Board (none of whose othermembers was a John Hope Franklin) anda long, rambling, overly general Messageto Congress by President Clinton five daysbefore leaving the White House and thusof course politically useless.2

Wachtel’s answer to the “what is to bedone?” question is that a lot is requiredof the oppressed as well as the oppres-sors. To the extent that blacks can beginto understand better the troubling behav-

Book Review: Race in the Mind of America

290 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW | JULY–AUGUST 2002

1 See my article, Notes on the President’s Initiative on Race, in 6 POVERTY & RACE 3 (1997),reprinted in CHESTER HARTMAN, BETWEEN EMINENCE AND NOTORIETY: FOUR DECADES OF

RADICAL URBAN PLANNING 359–62 (2002), and my subsequent observations on pp. 54–55of the introduction to that book; also the series of twenty-seven short essays headedAdvice to the Advisory Board and Comments on the Advisory Board Report, by JonathanKozol, Julian Bond, Hugh Price, Manning Marable, Peter Dreier, Howard Zinn, FrancesFox Piven, William L. Taylor, Theodore M. Shaw, Bill Ong Hing, Frank H. Wu, and oth-ers, in CHALLENGES TO EQUALITY: POVERTY AND RACE IN AMERICA 289–348 (Chester Hartmaned., 2001). A more positive take on the results of President Clinton’s Initiative on Raceappears in Michael Wenger, Past as Prologue: Lessons Learned from President Clinton’sInitiative on Race and How We Can Build upon These Lessons, FOCUS, June 2002, at 3.

2 ONE AMERICA IN THE 21ST CENTURY: FORGING A NEW FUTURE: THE PRESIDENT’S INITIATIVE ON

RACE (U.S. Gov’t Printing Office 1998); Pres. William J. Clinton, Message to Congress:The Unfinished Work of Building One America (Jan. 15, 2001). Recommendations werespread over seven broad areas: economic and social progress; educational excellencefor all children; civil rights enforcement; criminal justice reform; eliminating racial andethnic health disparities; voting reform; and civic responsibility. Typical of the wishy-washy nature of the message was this recommendation from the “civic responsibility”section: “Maintain the White House Office on One America, and reauthorize theNational and Community Service Trust Act. Every American should become engaged inthe work of expanding opportunity for all and building One America.”

ior they encounter from whites—thestereotyping, the white response to behav-ioral and attitudinal adaptations producedby institutional racism—“[i]t... might makeit just a bit more possible for blacks towork together with whites to seek meansof overcoming the misperceptions thatflaw our entire society.” [P. 140] Whileblacks legitimately feel they are thewronged party and

one can understand the feelingsthat would lead to such a view,... it is not a workable or practi-cal approach to overcoming thelocked-in realities we face....[The] cognitions we hold regard-ing other people are not just “inour heads.” They are maintainedin part by the reactions weevoke in those toward whom wedirect our expectations....[T]heinterconnections among us andthe dynamic interplay of theways we view each other are sosubstantial that unless AfricanAmericans actively consider therole they play in maintainingwhite attitudes—as, I hope iscrystal clear, whites must similar-ly do with regard to black viewsof them—we will be stuck in thesame repetitive recriminationsand misunderstandings for stillanother generation. Once again,to break the vicious circle, bothsides must recognize its exis-tence.[Pp. 140–41]

And: “Unless blacks can find a way to facethe pain of seeing fully what has beendone to them, and whites can face the guiltmost of us would prefer to rationalize ordeny, we are in for many more years ofgrief and danger.” [P. 164] This, needless tosay, is tough stuff for all of us to swallow.

A panoply of actions and responses,on both the institutional and personal

level, from both whites and blacks, iscalled for: a detailed focused program andprocess—precisely what the Initiative onRace failed to produce. And just as circu-larity characterizes the society’s race prob-lems, so must it characterize solutionssince the problems are linked. Againspeaking to the centrality of crime,Wachtel writes: “Crime rates are relatedto unemployment rates; whether one isemployed or not depends significantly oneducation; the education one receivesdepends very largely on the neighbor-hood one has grown up in; the neigh-borhood one grows up in depends onone’s family’s income and economicresources; and on and on and on.” [P.283] And so:

Programs to address the highlyintertwined influences that havemaintained our troubles and divi-sions must be of sufficient scaleand comprehensiveness that theybring us to a new tipping point,one that accelerates change in amore salutary direction andenables a more positive self-sus-taining dynamic to become thenorm. [P. 284]

A final, sobering admonition:

[Since] our society’s long-stand-ing inequalities have in fact donea lot of damage to its victims,[t]herefore, we will have to com-mit a lot of resources to repairthat damage. [Also], change willbe slow, will be impeded bylong-standing habits that wehave induced in those who havefor so long been denied oppor-tunity. [P. 71]

Again, a tough reality to accept, but areality.

Book Review: Race in the Mind of America

JULY–AUGUST 2002 | JOURNAL OF POVERTY LAW AND POLICY 291

Subscription Fee Schedule for CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW

Number of Subscriptions Subscription Rate

1 $300

2 $600

3 $750

4 $900

5 $1,050

6 $1,150

7 $1,250

8 $1,350

9 $1,450

10 $1,550

11 $1,610

For 12 or more, add $60 for each subscription.

Subscriptions to the National Center on Poverty Law Web Site

Subscriptions to the National Center on Poverty Law Web site, www.povertylaw.org, are $200 per yearor $25 per month per user. Organizations interested in multiple subscriptions should contact theNational Center on Poverty Law for discounted rates (e-mail support@povertylaw.org). For paper doc-uments, add a copy charge of $10 per case ordered and actual delivery charges. Faxing is available at50 cents per page.

2002 Subscription Order Form

Program name: __________________________________________________________________________

Contact name: ___________________________________________________________________________

Main address: ___________________________________________________________________________

City: ______________________________________________ State: _____________ Zip: _____________

Telephone: ______________________ Fax: _____________________HandsNet No.: _________________

Enclosed Fee

CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW (bimonthly)* $ __________

______ Number of subscriptions(Please refer to subscription rate to determine annual fee.)

*Please enclose a list of all names and addresses to receive the REVIEW if you order more than one subscription.

Subscription to National Center on Poverty Law Web Site $ __________

______ $200 annual subscription fee (see www.povertylaw.org for monthly subscriptions)

Total __________

Make checks payable to National Center on Poverty Law, 111 N. Wabash Ave., Chicago, IL 60602. For additional informationor questions, call 312.263.3830 ext. 222 or 224. To pay by credit card, call 312.263.3830 ext. 222.

CU

T H

ER

E