Prejudice plus power
Prejudice plus power, also known as R = P + P, is a stipulative definition of racism often used by white anti-racism activists, including the American pastor Joseph Barndt and American author Robin DiAngelo. Patricia Bidol-Padva first proposed this definition in a 1970 book, where she defined racism as “prejudice plus institutional power.” According to this definition, two elements are required in order for racism to exist: racial prejudice, and social power to codify and enforce this prejudice into an entire society. Reasons cited in support of this definition include that power is responsible for  the creation of racial categories, and that people favor their own racial groups over others. Criticism. Prejudice plus power has been criticized for downplaying racism committed by non-white people by replacing the word racism with the less negatively perceived word, prejudice. The definition also conflicts with critical race theory, through which racial prejudice describes two of the four levels of racism; internalized racism, and interpersonal racism. Internalized racism refers to racial prejudice that is internalized through socialization, while interpersonal racism refers to expressions of racial prejudice between individuals. Prejudice plus power attempts to separate forms of racial prejudice from  the word racism, which is to be reserved for institutional racism. Critics point out that an individual can not be institutionally racist, because institutional racism (sometimes referred to as systemic racism) only refers to institutions and systems, hence the name. The reaction of students to this definition tends to be mixed, with some thinking that it makes sense, and others perceiving it as a form of cognitive dissonance. In 2004, Beverly Tatum wrote that many of her white students find it difficult to relate to this definition on a personal level, because they do not perceive themselves either as prejudiced  or as having power. The definition has been criticized for relying on the assumption that power is a zero-sum game, and for not accounting for the lack of uniformity in prejudicial attitudes. Critics have also noted that this definition is belied by the fact that except in absolutist regimes, minorities, however disadvantaged they may be, are not powerless, because power is organized into multiple levels.