Lay Theories of Racial Difference Make a Difference

A new era of American race relations is upon us, but not necessarily for the obvious reasons. Although the American people recently elected a biracial president, we cannot interpret this major step forward as an indicator that we have been suddenly cured of our historical battle with racism. In truth, the demographics are shifting—a “majority-minority crossover” is likely within the next 30 to 40 years—and modern Americans might even consider themselves completely blind to color. However, according to Victoria Plaut (this issue), in her timely discussion on what many would like to call a “postracial” United States, now is certainly not the time to sit back and commend ourselves on how far we have come; indeed, there appears to be a long way left to go. Given the size of the racial disparities across numerous measures of social and economic welfare—wealth, employment, crime, housing, education, and health—Plaut contends that our society remains highly stratified, despite opinions to the contrary. It is these opinions, and the various perceptions of societal racism that exist among the different racial groups, that hint at very different sociocultural realities. According to Plaut, a diversity science is needed to focus in on these sociocultural realities, so that we might come to understand how perceptions of structure and culture are encouraged by one another and by institutions and practices within society, and how they reinforce and are reinforced by individuals’ racerelated attitudes and behaviors. We interpret Plaut’s target article as a sort of call to arms for social psychologists (and potentially experts within other related fields) to broaden their lines of research to include more than just the individual actor as perpetrator and perpetuator of prejudice, discrimination, and other forms of racial inequality. She proposes a “diversity science,” what we believe to be defined as a new discipline or understanding or way to think about race through a sociocultural lens that incorporates how societal practices, policies, and institutions act as sources of inequality, in addition to individuals’ conceptions of race. In effect, although individuals created the widely shared customs, laws, and ideologies to which we now adhere, once we decide to change our minds, we cannot expect the established order to automatically adapt to the current trend. Therefore, Plaut encourages study of this established order, such that understanding each of the components within the cycle of racial inequality can eventually help us to break it down and revolutionize race-related policy. Beyond proposing a diversity science, Plaut’s second major goal of this article is to thoroughly review two predominant approaches to understanding difference within the social psychological literature: colorblindness and multiculturalism. She skillfully integrates both experimental and real-world (primarily historical and legal) examples of the two ideologies, and has strategically chosen to discuss colorblindness and multiculturalism to make three points: (a) There are only two major models of diversity that have pervaded both social psychology and American institutional life over the past few decades, (b) both illustrate how notions of race and diversity that exist in the minds of individuals can become shared systems of beliefs and ultimately codified in law and policy, and (c) both approaches are flawed and potentially dangerous if not properly implemented. In short, colorblindness implies that race can be turned “off” and might ironically backfire when an individual attempts to suppress categorization on the basis of race. Further, Plaut suggests that colorblind legislation and policy might be the majority’s chosen method of dealing with race so as to sustain a currently advantageous status quo. Multiculturalism, although seemingly more promising in improving intergroup relations, can result in the essentialization of group differences, pigeonholing of currently valued minorities within specialized roles, and feelings of threat and social exclusion among majority group members. Plaut’s (this issue) discussion of colorblindness and multiculturalism is intended to act as a template from which diversity science as a discipline should continue to grow. Her investigation and integration of both the empirical and real-world demonstrations of the two concepts help to explain why a diversity science is needed—in short, that we should work to better understand that there are diverging sociocultural realities with different roots and consequences, and that it is these varying realities, and not just individual