PrintI would use the term “ECA” instead of the conceptually faulty and denigrating term “racism.” This is “Extreme Color Arousal,” whose acronym (ECA) is pronounced “EE-cah.” It sounds bad, right? And it should, because this is a very destructive illness, particularly in its most extreme forms. “
Now that many of us are acknowledging that the term “race” is a pseudo-scientific white supremacists’ fantasy word that stigmatizes Black people and other people of color every time it is used, we are also coming to accept that all words that are based upon and that presuppose the fallacious existence of “race” are equally damaging to our struggle for equality in America, precisely because they teach us, every day, that we from a separate “species” than white people. The US Supreme Court declared in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal. Now, we are coming to realize that for so long as we concede that we are from a separate “race” we will continue to receive separate and unequal treatment in America.
And so the question immediately and anxiously arises, “If we don’t call our difference “race” and we don’t call antagonism against our difference “racism” then how WILL we refer linguistically to these fundamental facts of our existence? Won’t we necessarily discard our analysis of the problem if we discard this fallacious word? Will we have to trade our hard-won deconstructive understanding of our position for denial and childishly simplistic solutions like “color-blindness?”
Absolutely not! We need a new vocabulary that accurately describes and helps us and others to deconstruct, what actually exists in the sciences of biology, sociology and politics, using the renaming process and our new understandings as a starting point for powerful social change.
Today, a reader e-mailed me, saying, “With human nature being what it is, I think a new terminology to replace the words race, racist, racism, etc. would catch on faster if it were concise and catchy. Maybe we could ask for suggestions. Something along the lines of colorist, colorism. It’s just a thought.”
Below, I explain why “colorist” and “colorism,” although well-intentioned suggestions, are terrible alternative terms scientifically, linguistically, politically and strategically, and I propose alternative solutions. We do not need a new synonym for an old and false concept. We need a new understanding that can lead to positive and even revolutionary change in America’s thoughts and its social order. What we need, in my humble but insistent opinion, is not merely to change the fallacious words but also to change our entire way of thinking and analyzing the problem. We need not just a new word but a new solution.
The reader may be right that a simpler terminology would catch on faster, but I’m not sure that would be better, particularly if it – once again – leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem, or if it relies on the simplistic solutions and denial implicit in proposals such as “color-blindness” (which, thankfully, the reader did not propose). So below, after sorting through this problem scientifically, linguistically, sociologically and politically, I propose some linguistic solutions that are both catchy as well as scientifically, sociologically and linguistically accurate.
The easiest part of this linguistic and analytical problem is naming the visual cue that elicits the negative response in what we used to call “racism.” When Blacks are on the highway and are stopped by police at a rate two or three times that of whites, the police cannot see our “ethnicity” and have no access to sublime genetic analysis that would allow them to target a fallacious “race.” From sixty or one hundred yards away, the police cannot even distinguish our African facial morphology very well, if at all. And many of us, like Barack Obama, don’t even really have strictly African facial morphology.
So, what police perceive visually and what arouses the negative behavioral response in them is, quite simply and uniquely, our “skin color.” In this case, there is no need to embellish or complicate a phenomenon which is really quite simple. When police perceive that a person’s skin is darker than white skin, be the victims Latino or Black, there often occurs within police officers’ brains a series of thoughts and feelings which are then manifested in behavior, like stopping us, searching us, beating us and/or arresting us.
Although white people would like to insist that they are responding to our “race” in such instances, partly because it allows them to imply that there are a series of important but imperceptible qualities that they are targeting beyond our skin color, the hard fact is that it is simply our skin-color that that arouses their attention. When aroused by perceiving the color of our skin, they then often also are aroused to dislike anything in us that is associated with our skin color, even if these cues would be acceptable in others who do not have our skin color. (For example, if the Irish, Jewish or Russians were Black, every aspect of their culture and their persons would come under sustained attack in America, regardless of their “ethnicity.”) Therefore we should replace the insulting misnomer of “race” and simply use the more accurate and relevant term “skin-color” instead.
But, if we discard the word “race,” then what term which will use for that which we historically but incorrectly referred to as “racism”? Obviously, once we agree that “race” does not exist as between human beings who are all of the same species, we cannot logically continue to use words which depend for their meaning of the fallacious existence of “race.”
The alternative term “color-arousal” properly and appropriately focuses on what happens inside the color-aroused person’s head at the moment when s/he perceives the color of another, in combination with an awareness of the person’s own color, identity, beliefs, ideation emotions and behavior. And in the head is precisely where the focus of our analysis should be: on what happens inside the head.
Consider this analogy: No “eating problem” like anorexia nervosa or bulimia can be resolved until we consider what goes on in the brain (thoughts, emotions) and mouth (behavior) of the ill person, because those physical areas within the body are the locus of the eating “problem.” Over-eating and under-eating involve a decisional process that occurs in the brain and is manifested in the behavior of the mouth. So, to help a patient, doctors study the emotions, thoughts and behavior of the patient. While overeating also involves food, the locus of the problem is not the supermarket; the locus of the problem is in the persons mind, and so it is a “mental problem,” not a “food problem.”
If you call bulimia a “food problem” (analogous to a “color problem”), then your focus will eternally be on the outside stimuli (food) rather than on what occurs in the head of the person who chooses to binge and purge. When people binge and purge, the locus of the problem is not in the food itself, but in their minds. Ask yourselves this: Could we ever solve the problems of bulimia or anorexia nervosa if we defined the problem as a “food problem” and went looking for the causes and solutions in the supermarket?
We can only discover the causes of anorexia and bulimia by studying the ideation, emotion and behavior of those who refuse to eat or who binge and purge. Likewise, the problem of color-arousal is not in our “race” but in other people’s perceptual arousal in response to perception of our skin-color, and then the emotions, ideation and behavior that follow within those subjects heads.
Some few psychiatrists are now studying “racism” (sic) and we should read what they say, as well as the new and revolutionary Position Statement of the American Psychiatric Association.In the problem of what we used to call “racism,” the locus of the problem is actually “color-arousal.” This is the preferred term because it focuses our attention precisely on what happens when the perception of skin-color arouses extreme emotions, ideation and behavior in suffers of extreme color arousal disorder (ECA).
To begin to identify, diagnose and treat extreme color-arousal, “color arousal” is also the preferable term scientifically, because we need to measure the level of arousal, the particular circumstances in which it occurs and the ideation, emotion and behavior that follow.
Although it is impossible to identify or measure “racism” in any individual with any even minimal degree of scientific agreement, it is actually quite easy to measure “skin-color-arousal” and many studies are based on this successful measurement. Unfortunately, until recently the psychiatric profession and other professionals had almost completely ignored and discounted extreme color-aroused emotions, ideation and behavior as an area in which patients are in need of diagnosis and treatment.
It is important to note that not all thoughts and behaviors aroused by the perception of skin-color are antagonistic thoughts or are necessarily dysfunctional or negative. When we see someone with exactly our mother’s skin color, we may feel good inside without knowing why. The problem occurs when subjects perceive the color of another and this arouses unrealistic thoughts, powerfully negative emotions and dysfunctionally antagonistic behaviors. I call this Extreme Color-aroused Emotion, Ideation and Behavior Disorder (ECEIBD). But this term can easily be shorted without losing anything to Extreme Color Arousal (ECA), which is pronounced EE-Cah.
Here’s another reason why the term “colorist” is a poor substitute for Extreme Color Arousal (ECA): When you add the suffix “ist “to a noun in the English language, as the BBC notes, the meaning becomes “a person who does or specializes in a certain area,” for example a “biologist,” a “gynecologist,” a “therapist.” Are people who experience extreme color-arousal the “specialists” in the disease that ails them or are they people in need of specialists? Isn’t extreme color-arousal characterized by the subject’s extreme denial and ignorance of what is going on within his head and why?
Do we really want to exalt the status of people who are extremely color-aroused, and create a new linguistic and conceptual fallacy, by calling them “specialists” in color-arousal? To the contrary, the specialists in color-arousal ought to be the “psychiatrists” who examine what goes on in the heads of people who experience dysfunctional and extreme color-arousal.
There are also important political and psychological reasons NOT to use the term colorist. The suffix “ist,” when added to a noun in the English language, becomes an adjective that modifies the description of the person being referred to, for the purpose of signifying that that person advocates or approves of the noun to which “ist” is applied. For example, “Marxist,” “Leninist,” “monopolist,” “capitalist,” “leftist.”
A person who feels extreme color-aroused animus is clearly not someone who “advocates or approves of color,” like a “capitalist” approves of the aggregation of capital. The truth is exactly the opposite. People who have extreme color-aroused disorder often hate others’ skin-color (or their own) and feel intense phobia, fear and anxiety when they perceive skin color and their feelings are aroused.
Linguistically, to simply add the suffix “ist” to the word “color” would denote precisely the opposite of what is intended, by implying that “colorists” are either experts in or advocates of color, when the exact opposite is true. This would have the effect of further confusing and retarding efforts to better understand, diagnose and treat extreme color-arousal.
For the moment, I would use the term “ECA” instead of the conceptually faulty and denigrating term “racism” “Extreme Color Arousal,” whose acronym (ECA) is pronounced “EE-cah.” It sounds bad, right? And it should, because it is a very destructive illness, particularly in its most extreme forms.
I would refer to people who experience extreme color arousal and who engage in extreme behaviors as a result as “ECA sufferers,” “ECA patients,” and, when they commit crimes or civil offenses, “ECA perpetrators.” There you go! This is a simple two-syllable term that is also descriptive and accurate and that can serve as the basis of empirically-based studies, diagnosis and treatment.
The “ECA” acronym, when pronounced “EE-cah” or “EH-cah” also has the advantage of sounding very undesirable. Meanwhile, it would be politically and linguistically ruinous to use a word like “colorist,” which sounds like it could easily refer to a desirable art-form, like “cubism.” So, for the moment, I would use “ECA.” “Extreme Color Arousal.” This term directs us in the right direction linguistically, politically and scientifically for our efforts to define, diagnose, and treat the disease and it societal manifestations and sequelae.
Once you agree that conditions that affect and impair the emotions, ideation and behavior are “mental” illnesses, then you must logically accept and embrace the fact that Extreme Color-Arousal is, indeed, a “mental illness.” Like other mental illnesses, ECA necessarily has some effects in society, but those effects are manifestations and sequelae of the mental illness. You cannot have a problem of alcohol fetal syndrome in society unless you also concede that you have a problem of alcoholism within individual patients. Likewise you cannot have Extreme Color-Aroused Injustice in society unless you have Extreme Color-Arousal disorder (ECA) in individual members of society.
Everyone perceives color, at least having the ability to distinguish between Black and white. People who cannot distinguish between Black and white are not “color-blind,” they are entirely blind. So, color-blindness is no solution to the problem we face, even if it were surgically feasible and advisable. Surgically disabling our ability to perceive the difference between Black and white (making people blind) is unlikely to be a feasible or politically tenable solution to extreme color-arousal.
Once you acknowledge that ECA is a mental illness, you must begin to use the analogy of other mental illnesses to understand what societal approaches will advance and retard the treatment of the disease. One of the strongest deterrents to treatment both in patients and clinicians is “stigma.”
From the moment scientists identified HIV and AIDS, social responses of fear, denial, stigma and discrimination have accompanied the epidemic. Discrimination has spread rapidly, fuelling anxiety and prejudice against the groups most affected, as well as those living with HIV or AIDS. It goes without saying that HIV and AIDS are as much about social phenomena as they are about biological and medical concerns.
Across the world the global epidemic of HIV/AIDS has shown itself capable of triggering responses of compassion, solidarity and support, bringing out the best in people, their families and communities. But the disease is also associated with stigma, repression and discrimination, as individuals affected (or believed to be affected) by HIV have been rejected by their families, their loved ones and their communities. This rejection holds as true in the rich countries of the north as it does in the poorer countries of the south. Stigma is a powerful tool of social control. Stigma can be used to marginalize, exclude and exercise power over individuals who show certain characteristics. While the societal rejection of certain social groups (e.g. ‘homosexuals, injecting drug users, sex workers’) may predate HIV/AIDS, the disease has, in many cases, reinforced this stigma…
By blaming certain individuals or groups, society can excuse itself from the responsibility of caring for and looking after such populations. This is seen not only in the manner in which ‘outsider’ groups are often blamed for bringing HIV into a country, but also in how such groups are denied access to the services and treatment they need. Avert.Org
If the first step to making progress with the AIDS illness was reducing the stigma and increasing accurate public information to encourage sufferers to seek medical help, the approach to ECA will require the same mindset. With ECA as with AIDS, we need more information, more destigmatization, more diagnosis, more treatment and, eventually, a cure. We need social support for those seeking to confront their illness, not reject or ridicule. But, w hen you refer to Extreme Color-Arousal using a misnomer such as “racism” or “colorism,” you create precisely the sort of stigma that has dissuaded the American Psychiatric Association from wanting to acknowledge and treat this mental illness. (See their Resolution Against Racism and POSITION STATEMENT of the American Psychiatric Association: Racial [sic] Discrimination and Their
Adverse Impacts on Mental Health.)
NOTE: The preceding post is by one of my favorite bloggers on the net, Francis L. Holland. His posts set a standard for bloggers in making people think, especially about issues that may be uncomfortable.
Francis L. Holland, Esq.
francislholland@yahoo.com
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
