Psychology Reader

Racism in the Structure of Everyday Worlds

Phia S. Salter, Glenn Adams, and Michael J. Perez · 2018 · Current Directions in Psychological Science

Role
Foundational argument · Critical reappraisal
Difficulty
Moderate
Full work length
6 pages
Type
Journal article

Access

Psychology Reader links to legitimate sources and does not host article PDFs.

Reading focus

Syllabus: How Do Prejudice and Discrimination Arise—and Change?

Identify how historical representations and institutional practices can shape the choices available to individuals.

Why you’re reading it. Add an account of persistence that does not depend entirely on personal animosity.

A question to consider. A workplace removes hostile language but leaves a referral system unchanged. What would you examine before concluding that access has become fairer?

Why this reading

An account of racism needs to explain more than individual dislike. This cultural-psychological argument examines how institutions, representations of history, and everyday practices can preserve unequal arrangements and shape the people who encounter them.

Before you read

Mutual constitution means that people help reproduce cultural settings while those settings shape thought and action. Institutional and individual explanations can interact. A practice's effects need not depend on every participant consciously endorsing its historical rationale.

Read for

  1. Identify the steps connecting selected histories and cultural artifacts with judgments about present inequality.
  2. Separate experimental examples, historical interpretation, and the broader theoretical argument.
  3. Ask which proposed changes target attitudes and which alter the settings in which decisions occur.

Consider afterwards

  1. How could a school's account of its history influence what pupils recognize as discrimination today? What evidence would distinguish that explanation from an alternative?

Editorial context

This short conceptual review draws heavily on US racial history and selected studies. It does not estimate the contribution of every institution or test all of its intervention suggestions. Its contribution is an explanatory level to investigate, not a rule that every disparity has the same cause or that individual choices are irrelevant.