Ethnoconvenience: A Cousin of Colorism and Colorblindness and a Behavior of Tolerance and Exclusion-Juniper Publishers
Juniper Publishers-Social Sciences
Abstract
Many organizations have instituted policies of
tolerance as official parts of their corporate or agency diversity and
inclusion initiatives, and
many people have become accustomed to using the term synonymously with
acceptance and inclusion. Tolerance, however, despite the likely
intended meaning of the term, is a white-centric artifact developed by
the empowered in a dominant-subordinated culture, with the word, at its
very roots, making the implication that people of color and other
minority groups are to be tolerated—accepted against the standards and
norms
in a culture of eurocentrism and racial privilege. Essentially,
attitudes, language, and behaviors of tolerance include a group of
behaviors, such as
colorblindness, colorism, sameness, centralization, credentializing, and
tokenization, among others, that espouse tolerance and therefore,
instead
of diversity, equity, and inclusion promote toleration and exclusion. We
introduce ethnoconvenience as one series of such attitudes and
behaviors
and define and describe what warrants ethnoconvenience and how it is
related to yet differentiated from the other language and practices of
tolerance in today’s immortalized dominant-subjugated U.S. culture.
Keywords: Ethnoconvenience; Tolerance; Racism; Prejudice; Diversity and Inclusion; Stereotyping; Racial Privilege
Introduction
Racial discrimination continues to be a problem in the United
States (U.S.) and globally. Despite great progress over several
generations, this pervasive problem exists in U.S. communities and
organizations and affects the way that people interact in public
as well as the way organizations are designed, developed, and
operated. Despite efforts to progress beyond them, there continue
to be issues related to race, color, and culture and they have a
significant effect on social and economic disparities and prevent
equity and inclusion. Government administrators, politicians,
academics, community leaders, and organizational executives
have worked to improve diversity programs and policies and
have created standards and policies designed to minimize or
exterminate marginalization. These efforts have increased hiring
of people of color globally and have prompted the addition of
language of tolerance into many organizational policies and
handbooks.
Unfortunately, many do not understand the implications and
ramifications of attitudes, language, and behaviors of tolerance
which, although designed to prevent bigotry and prejudice, act as
contributors to diversity and exclusion rather than inclusion and
equity. There are numerous behaviors that fall into this category of
tolerance, including one that we introduce that, although related
to the others, separates itself. This attitude and behavior is termed
ethnoconvenience, and it can promote, preserve, and perpetuate
inequality and exclusion in organizations, communities, and
society. The purpose of this article is to define, describe, and
exemplify ethnoconvenience and discuss how it is related to the
other behaviors and attitudes of tolerance, and to further explain
the role that it plays in the perpetuation of racial inequality and
exclusion in organizations, communities, and in society in general.
Racism, Inequality, Diversity, Inclusion, and Multiculturalism
The United States is a nation with a history of being strongly
preoccupied with differences, and thus diversity has very much
been a matter of identity in the country [1]. Our national construct
in the U.S. is one that has been defined as a continuum from a dominant versus subordinated culture towards multiculturalism,
equity, and inclusion [2]. Moving towards a healthy construction
desires the inclusion of subordinated groups, including categories
of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship status,
religion, and ability, and the intersection of these categories [2].
Unfortunately, we are not, as a nation, nor as a people globally,
nearing the terminal end of that continuum. Racism has deep,
and often horrific roots in the history of the U.S. and the national
population, and racism and inequality have long been and continue
to be a pervasive social problem in our society, in communities,
and in organizations, including occupational settings. It is no
secret that the dominant culture in a society, a community, or an
organization molds individuals, their attitudes, their beliefs, their
values, and their behaviors [3]. In the U.S., the predominant culture
of white dominance [2] has shaped the government, laws, social
groups, organizations, and the individuals within the population
for generations [4]. Certainly, many organizations have figured out
the economic, legal, and social benefits of and reasons to diversify
the workforce. These organizations have begun to understand that
they need to draw the best talent to remain competitive in today’s
rapidly changing global market and that this talent comes from
different demographics in the global population [4-7].
Nevertheless, we still dwell in a racially divided and
dominance-driven nation, and this is mimicked in organizations.
We must candidly and honestly drive discourse and dialogue and
strive not simply for tolerance, which is a byproduct of the raciallydriven
culture of dominance, but instead for racial equality, as well
as equity in the workplace. James Baldwin stated that the future,
and dealing with discrimination and diversity in the future, is
our responsibility because we are our only hope [8]. Therefore,
it is critical that we address the different language, practices,
pathways, and behaviors that continue to perpetuate racism,
bigotry, and the dominant-subordinated culture that exists in our
society. The word subordinated instead of subordinate is used
here because it is a condition that is forced upon the group by a
majority or dominant group historically empowered to do so [2].
We posit that a behavior, attitude, or practice, which we call
ethnoconvenience, is a distinct, though related, attitude and
behavior of tolerance [4,7], as will be discussed throughout the
manuscript, and thus is a significant contributor to inequality,
inequity, discrimination, and delegitimization, and is a barrier to
equality, inclusion, and multiculturalism.
Discussion
Ethnoconvenience – An Introduction
Within the problems and continual issues of prejudice and
racism in the U.S., one of the biggest purposes for and results
from bigotry is delegitimization, which is the categorization of
groups into negative social extremes that drive exclusion from
the dominant society’s definition of human norms and values [9].
Whether purposefully established and instigated, or accidental,
delegitimization occurs in society at the national, community, and
organization levels.
There are numerous stages in Huntley, Moore & Pierce’s
[2] continuum, representing the journey from racial inequality
to equity and inclusion, where delegitimization is clearly
identifiable. This continuum is a brilliant map of the U.S. social
system undergoing transformation, providing a better and more
transparent understanding of race dynamics. Combined with
the continuum, Huntley’s, Moore’s & Pierce’s [2] Journey of Race,
Color, and Culture explores the complex dynamics in the U.S. and
illuminates who we are, as individuals, and how we behave in the
context of these dynamics.
Although many are aware of the numerous methods by
which delegitimization occurs, and the ways in which racism
rears its ugly head, including stereotyping, white privilege, white
liberalism, colorblindness, credentializing, and tokenization,
among other behaviors associated with the supremacy-driven
concept of tolerance, one concept closely related to but separate
from these behaviors and attitudes is generally missed in the
discussion altogether. This behavior, although sometimes muted
in comparison, is no less damaging or problematic in the dynamics
of interactions that deal with the problems of racial inequality,
inequity, prejudice, and exclusion.
Ethnoconvenience is a close cousin of colorblindness,
sameness, colorism, tokenization, and stereotyping, all
attitudes and behaviors of tolerance rather than equality and
multiculturalism. In short, ethnoconvenience includes the
identification and categorization of individuals, and application
of values, thoughts, beliefs, and affiliations onto those individuals,
based on appearance and assumption. It is, in practice, a way of
categorizing someone because it is convenient to an argument,
proof of a point being made, or action. Ethnoconvenience, left
unattended, affords the perpetrator the ability to proceed with
thoughts, behaviors, or treatment towards others with little effort
or difficulty, and without alarm of inherent bias or racial privilege.
In order to thoroughly understand ethnoconvenience, it is first
vital to explore the different related attitudes, practices, and
behaviors of tolerance.
Attitudes, Behaviors, and Language of Tolerance
Tolerance is a term often used to define acceptance, and is
commonly referred to in educational, corporate, and government
agency policies and procedures in reference to ensuring inclusive
environments that are free of racism and bigotry. Nevertheless, the
use of the term tolerance, with reference to the social constructs of
race, identity, and societal race relations, is one that delays or halts
progress towards equity and multiculturalism, and may, on the
subconscious level, promote exclusion and continued bigotry [7].
Today, arguably a revived era of pseudo-normalized racial
and ethnic upheaval that is both a cause for and a product of
police brutality, bigoted demonstrations, riots, politicians’ racist
remarks, defacement of cultural landmarks, disparate treatment
in commercial establishments, and inhumane detention practices,
among others, it is not uncommon to hear subject matter experts,
reporters, politicians, and media pundits call for sensitivity training and increased tolerance in the general population or in
organizations.
However, the language and attitude of tolerance in these
pleas, as well as those commonly seen in human resources (HR)
policies and corporate diversity and inclusion (D&I) practices,
are examples of the perpetuation of this dominant-subordinated
behavior, where the mass population is the one that “tolerates” the
existence and practices of the “others,” the people of color (PoC).
Tolerance is a topic of race and power in society, in conjunction
with other identities and forms of discrimination [10], although it
does not always appear blatant or may not even be recognized by
the perpetrators, remaining purposefully or conditionally hidden
in their unconscious states, even as a positive instead of negative
social element [7].
Although many corporations and other organizations have
taken to increasing and improving corporate social responsibility
(CSR) programs regarding D&I, many of the policies still tend to
result in attitudes and language that, even on subconscious levels,
result in behaviors and practices of dominance and subjugation
in organizations, providing advantages based on pre-established,
long-lasting, habitual and historic cultural artifacts of inequality,
including attitudes and common statements that foster or
perpetuate exclusion and marginalize or delegitimize PoC,
exemplified in (Table 1) [7]. As human beings, and particularly
those in leadership and other positions of influence in society,
we must recognize the effects of the tolerance practices of
colorblindness, sameness, tokenization, colorism, stereotyping,
white centrism, model minority status, and ethnoconvenience—
practices that perpetuate diversity and exclusion instead of
promoting diversity and inclusion. Practices that have been
normalized in the greater society in the U.S.
Colorblindness
A commonly heard response regarding racism is “I don’t
even see color.” While some believe that this is a commendable
statement or outlook, it is instead a contributor to the problem
of racial inequality. Being colorblind is not a solution for racism.
Being colorblind means that there’s a failure to identify and
recognize the person in question, thus ignoring or rejecting their
selves and all those traits and experiences that make them who
they are. By stating that one is colorblind, it is implying that
PoC are invisible to them, and this is a failure to recognize one’s
cultures, rites, rituals, upbringing, and experiences [2,4].
Colorblindness ignores cultural differences instead of
honoring them and allows people to ignore the history of white
cultural dominance and the experiences of PoC in dealing with this
subjugation throughout history. Although people that make these
statements may even believe that they are attempting to treat
everyone equally, the reality is that it perpetuates the dominantsubordinated
culture [2,7]. Colorblindness is one attitude and
behavior of tolerance and it exhibits a message of ignorance to
cultural differences, and even if unintentionally, it compares PoC
to white people norms, implying that PoC are tolerable rather than
equal [7].
Sameness
Sameness, closely tied to colorblindness, is another behavior of
tolerance. It is not uncommon for people to make race-associated
statements that imply that “we are all the same underneath.” Not
only is this biologically implausible, it immortalizes privileged
and bigoted thinking and behavior. Even people that have been
intimately involved in the struggle against bigotry and racism have
used these types of statements, probably with the best intentions,
but with a subconscious frame of privilege.
In a recent best-selling biographical novel [11], for example,
although we cannot presume what thoughts and ideas escaped the
author’s mind at the time of writing, there is a quote that states that
“we are all the same.” As explained, this language is problematic
for D&I scholars, applied behavioral scientists, and social science
practitioners who focus on D&I. Like colorblindness, sameness
is a concept that perpetuates the dominant-subordinated culture [2,4]. In the context of the statement that “you’re no
different than I, we are all the same,” sameness practically means
whiteness because it positions PoC in white cultural norms, as
though they are tolerable now that they have reached the level
of white standards and have been proclaimed to be “the same.” It
discounts the cultural differences and discards experiences with
racial injustice and bigotry [2], delegitimizing the struggle. Thus,
statements and attitudes like these ignore the uniqueness of our
race-based differences, instead discarding the differences we have
in upbringing, life experience, rites, and rituals for a proclamation
that “you are as good as I am” [7].
Colorism
Colorism is a persistent problem for PoC in the U.S., and
globally, although it is much less focused on in race discourse.
In general terms, colorism, which is also sometimes referred to
as skin color stratification, is a means by which prejudice occurs
not solely based on race and ethnicity, but also on skin color and
tone, and other allelic features. In many aspects, this behavior
privileges lighter skinned PoC over those with darker skin and has
been shown to sometimes cause disparities among people of the
same racial background in terms of income, education, housing,
employment, and organizational positionality [12]. Historically,
the social construct of racism has permitted the dominant culture
to not only unequally treat PoC based on race, but also on skin
color and darkness, furthermore, creating tension within and
between communities of PoC [12]. This behavior has not only
perpetuated white privilege and racial bigotry against PoC, but it
has sabotaged unity and solidarity between inter- and intra-PoC
groups, like the effects of the social construct of model minorities.
Some research shows that PoC with lighter skin have, as a
result of white supremacy and white centrism, enjoyed some level
of clear advantage when it comes to economics, employment, and
educational disparities, marginalizing individuals with darker
skin and limiting opportunity. However, the data also shows
evidence of a disparity regarding ethnic authenticity, recognition,
and legitimacy, on the contrary being granted to individuals with
darker skin, marginalizing and delegitimizing lighter skinned
individuals and minimizing their experiences and cultural
identities. This practice of colorism is directly related to and part
of the larger problem of systematic and systemic racism, both in
the U.S. and globally [12], and is a creation of white supremacy and
the racist culture in U.S. history.
Although this racist phenomenon against PoC has occurred
throughout generations in the U.S., it has somehow gone undetected
in the legal and policy infrastructure. In the U.S., colorism is often
ignored in the courts as a type or kind of discrimination [13]
because although the law includes color as a basis for prohibited
discrimination, it has generally been interpreted to mean the same
thing as race [14], not including hue, tone, hair color, hair texture,
and eye color, among other features.
Colorism expands bigotry from the dominant to the
subordinated, turning people of color against one another as a
result of skin shade, and based on a eurocentric, white idea of
beauty and acceptability. Under generations of exposure to this
behavior, Black, Asian, and Latino/a people, among others, have
had some of their experiences trivialized and their opportunities
minimized.
Hidden or Implicit Bias
Hidden or implicit biases are automatic, unconscious or
subconscious preferences for or against a group or individual.
Although implicit biases are not always negative, these preferences
act to form the basis for related behaviors – stereotypes,
discrimination, and prejudice. Thus, hidden or implicit biases
can feed the racially-based disparity in communities and in
organizations [15].
These implicit biases affect people’s actions and decisions in
an unconscious or subconscious manner, with the perpetrators
often unaware of their privilege or any intention of control [2],
and white privilege often precludes people from recognizing
and understanding these hidden biases [16]. Even upon limited
recognition of these biases, individuals may still be hesitant
to admit that they hold them, often due to personal fragility
regarding being viewed in a negative manner [17]. As an outcome,
these biases lead to a detachment between intentions and actions,
as well as to the inability to address how the biases impact
interactions with others in organizations, communities, and
societies [7]. Implicit biases can cause people, including group,
organizational, or community leaders, to believe that they are
being inclusive and accepting of diverse people, diverse thought,
and cultures through their policies and practices of tolerance
when, in fact, these policies, practices, attitudes, and behaviors of
tolerance are exclusionary and prejudiced [7].
white privilege
white privilege is another relevant factor in the inequitable
and disparate practice of tolerance. It is defined as unearned
advantage gained for no other reason besides being white in
a white-dominant and homophile civilization. This is a strong
example of institutional power in a racially stratified society that
goes largely unacknowledged to many within that society. white
privilege is a crux to this dominant-subjugated culture that has
historically had and continues to employ a power-over instead
of a power-with relationship about PoC. This privilege has a
confirmed effect of forced societal dominance [18], putting PoC in
subordinated and unequal statures [2] relative to white society.
white privilege is commonly accompanied by resistance and
denial from those that benefit from it – even unconscious denial of
social favor and the advantages that come with it. The resistance
of people to consciously acknowledge this is evidence of how,
intentionally or not, power, privilege, and comfort have come to
non-PoC, and it benefits them to hold on to it [2].
Tokenization
With the practice of privilege and implicit bias in place,
tokenization is seeded as a relevant behavior and practice, exhibited also as a behavior and attitude of tolerance. This
behavior occurs or is displayed when individuals from a PoC
group are given honorary status within the white group. It is not
uncommon to hear from people, when confronted with some act
of racism or bigotry, that “I’m not racist, one of my best friends is
Black,” or a similar statement. Having a friend or an acquaintance
that is Black, Jewish, Mexican, Chinese, or disabled does not only
not automatically clear someone from being bigoted against those
racial, ethnic, or other groups, it displays a level of ignorance and
privilege, and can be argued to be an exhibit of the individual’s
prejudice.
Often, tokenization exists because a person from a different
demographic is allowed into the societal circles of the dominant
group within the dominant-subjugated culture, at least
superficially, because they present themselves in a way that is
acceptable to or tolerated by that dominant group, despite their
differences [2,7]. In short, this attitude and behavior consists of
granting honorary status to select individuals from an out-group
into the in-group based on acceptability to and adoption of the ingroup’s
social norms, although it often comes with the expectation
that those tokenized individuals put on airs [7].
Tokenization is often used as a multi-faceted approach to
benefit the in-group or individuals in the in-group. It allows the
members of that group to set aside their guilt and feel good about
their selves for accepting someone Black, Latino/a, Jewish, or
Asian, for example, into their group. At the same time, justifications
are often made for these “honorary” members. Announcing
that “they’re different,” of course describing difference from
others in the out-group rather than honoring the differences
from those in the in-group. Plus, this tolerance often comes with
additional expectations of not only falling in line but exhibiting
loyalty by using the honorary status in order to keep those in the
subordinated group “in their places [2].”
Tokenization does, by means of definition, exhibit acceptance.
However, this is not an inherent acceptance based on equity, and
can be termed modern-day acceptance, meaning that the individual
is accepted into the mould and is given a title of equal dependent
on the evaluation against dominant-driven, pre-determined
standards, in this case, white standards [7]. This modern-day
acceptance means that the vision of equality and justice is based
on white-centric standards rather than being inherently equal
based on humanity. This, of course, is not equality and equity, but
rather a faux acceptance and an attitude of tolerance, preserving
the power-over model and historic dominant-subordinated
culture.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes and prejudice are influenced by both individual self
as well as social motives, the perceiver’s focus of attention, group
membership, and the configuration of stimulus cues. Individual
characteristics of members of groups have shown to influence
the extent to which stereotypes and prejudice are activated, and
the extent to which they are automatic [19]. Effectually, the study
of stereotypes is the study of many aspects of social psychology,
including group membership, intergroup relations, and group
dynamics, as well as neurobiology and neuropsychology.
However, from a fundamental perspective, stereotyping requires
an understanding of human nature, particularly relevant to
neurocognitive fundamentals [20]. Psychologists have shown the
relationship between both neurocognitive and social dynamics
that participate in the formation of stereotyping. Stereotypes
are beliefs, regardless of accuracy or truth, about another group
in terms of personality, attributions, or behaviors. They are
often based on prejudicial thoughts and beliefs, and often create
negative attitudes toward those groups – attitudes that express
negative affective or emotional reactions [9,21].
It is through a lack of knowledge or understanding that
prejudicial stereotypes often form, and it is often through
experiences with an individuals or small samples that stereotypes
are generated and inaccurately applied to entire groups.
Unfortunately, these stereotypes can lead to learned reactions
and behaviors that are unjustified, such as disparity and inequity
in law enforcement and judicial action, employment interviews,
workplace promotions, banking decisions, property rental, and
educational opportunities, among others.
Behaviors and Human Factors Contributing to Ethnoconvenience
Visual Assumption
People are quick to make visual assumptions or to deduce
conclusions based on what they see immediately in front of them.
They often act based on these visual experiences or the visual
evidence before them. Although what they see may be true to
them, these so-called truths are directly based on their personal
experience and social construct, depending heavily on culture,
upbringing, training, experience, socialization, politics, and other
factors. But these assumptions and so-called truths are often
not evidence-based, and are even decided upon very simplistic,
rudimentary observational behavior.
Amy Herman [22] explains in Visual Intelligence how
individuals often make decisions based on assumptions that
they believe are evidence-driven because it, whatever it may
be, is occurring or has occurred directly in front of their eyes.
However, Herman explains that most people may observe, but
do not truly see what it is that stands before them. They make
assumptions and deductions without getting a deeper look at
and understanding of scenarios that transpire right in front
of them. These assumptions are often inaccurate, wrong, and
potentially damaging to investigations, interactions, relationships,
organizations, or communities. Such is also sometimes the
case regarding people. People are often perceived solely based
on visual assumption, without a deeply rooted knowledge or
understanding of their background, both physical and social. This
type of behavior often contributes to stereotyping and serves as a
base for ethnoconvenience.
Inattentional Blindness
As fore-mentioned, Herman [22] discusses the idea of visual
intelligence not as a means of exploring more than what people
see, but rather to take a deeper dive into what is right in front of
them, to analyze the scenario from every angle, and to pull new
or more detailed meaning from it, thus better observing their
situations and finding, describing, and defining the fine data
[22,23], and not making assumptions and deductions that are
emotion- rather than evidence-based. Very often, people see the
scenario or surroundings that are right in front of them, but do not
see or interpret the details in the scenario or the picture.
This inability to truly see what is directly in front of them
is termed inattentional or unintentional blindness. This
inattentional blindness phenomenon suggests that when focus
is placed exclusively on a specific part of a concept, behavior,
or image, the other details tend to fade into the background,
regardless of whether they are in plain view [22], and decisions
are made based solely on what one sees or perceives, regardless
if it is real. Furthermore, most people do not believe that they
experience inattentional blindness because they lack the
awareness of it and they lack, as fore-mentioned, the personal useof-
self-as-instrument skills to recognize this [22,23]. Combined,
visual assumption and inattentional blindness create a lattice for
stereotyping and ethnoconvenience.
Ethnoconvenience: Cousin to Colorblindness and Colorism
The practice and language of identifying someone based
solely on thoughts, beliefs, ideals, perception, interpretation, and
visual appearance, and to make assumptions regarding beliefs
and acceptable behavior based on those characterizations is what
we define as ethnoconvenience, because in a multitude of ways,
it enables the perpetrator to view the individual however it is
convenient for him or her, making assumptions based on the selfmisplaced
internal conveniences.
In short, ethnoconvenience can be interpreted as the
perceiver’s cognitive laziness in the management of potential
complex reality or data. The practice of ethnoconvenience ignores
data that is either unavailable, unseen, unknown, or uncomfortable
and instead makes determinations, definitions, and decisions
based solely on assumptions that are in fact based on personal
experiences, beliefs, or ideas. These beliefs and ideas may originate
from the fore-mentioned behaviors of tolerance, including white
privilege and implicit bias, as well as the related colorblindness,
sameness, colorism, and stereotyping. Based on these biases and
beliefs, individuals often commit ethnoconvenient behaviors and
categorizations as a result of the integration of visual assumption
and inattentional blindness. Ethnoconvenience can take many
shapes and forms, and they are all related yet slightly separate
or different from the other attitudes and behaviors of tolerance.
Multiple examples are provided in the following text, but this is
not an all exhaustive list or exhibit.
One example of ethnoconvenience includes the basic
categorization of an individual’s race or ethnicity simply based
on their physical feature appearance, including skin color, hair
color, hair texture, eye shape and size, nose shape and size, among
other features. For instance, assuming someone is of white race
or ethnicity because of their skin color, and either avoiding
the possibility or ignoring the knowledge that the individual is
Jewish, is an example of ethnoconvenience. A similar example
is assuming that a Black individual is racially white due to the
outward appearance of light skin tone, blonde hair, and green
eyes. Although this is ethnoconveniencing, this is the simplest
form. People make determinations based on observation, and it is
not always easy to identify the race or ethnicity based on physical
features. Many people could make this mistake, and it is often
human nature to do so.
On the other hand, knowing that someone is Black, Jewish,
Native American, or other background and ignoring that
information because of their outward appearance is not as simple,
and is a blatant act of either white-centric tolerance or intolerance.
This is the second type or example of ethnoconvenience. This
is either ignoring the race, ethnicity, or culture that you know
exists, or ignoring what is observable. For instance, identifying
an outwardly appearing Orthodox Jew as White, despite facial
features and cultural dress, or failing to identify someone who
is Black Hispanic as such, paying attention only to the black skin
color and ignoring the Latino/a race and culture of the individual.
A different example of this, though more difficult to identify, is
the assumption that family members are not related because
of skin color differences, such as making the assumption that a
darker skinned Black woman is a nanny or a babysitter when she
is caring for a lighter skinned or white skinned child, ignoring the
possibility or even the likelihood that she is the child’s mother.
A third type of ethnoconvenience involves ignoring or
devaluing an individual’s race, ethnicity, or culture because of
existing data. For instance, knowing that someone has distant
Apache or Navajo ancestry, but dismissing or denying that tie
because it is distant or low percentage. A similar example has to
do with the knowledge and understanding that an individual is
Jewish but ignoring or dismissing the genetic-racial and ethnic
heritage information and categorizing ethnic Jewry solely as
religious, and the individual based on skin color. Often, this is done
for convenient purposes in a debate or to attempt to prove a point,
and thus, the perpetrator conveniently ignores or dismisses ethnic
or cultural belonging for political or other gain, such as arguments
regarding indigeneity to a land or region.
The next example of ethnoconvenience is closely related to
colorism and stereotyping and may, but should not, be confused
with colorism. As fore-mentioned, peer-reviewed study data has
shown disparities between lighter and darker skinned individuals
of different races. The data has shown that some lighter skinned
individuals may have experienced economic, educational, or
employment advantages over PoC with darker skin, and that some
darker skinned individuals may have experience more acceptance and been credited with a higher level of ethnic authenticity and
legitimacy than their lighter counterparts [12,14]. Although these
study data may be true, the white-centric assumption regarding
these experiences is not colorism, but rather ethnoconvenience. In
other words, the assumption that someone of lighter skin has had
an easier experience or has not experienced discrimination at the
same or at any level is ethnoconvenience.
A further and related type of ethnoconvenience also having
to do with colorism and stereotyping has to do with applying an
assumption of appearance on an entire race, ethnicity, or culture.
While stereotyping generally has to do with applying experience,
observation, or knowledge of personality, attributions, or
behaviors of an individual to an entire group, ethnoconvenience
has to do with applying what one believes of an entire group,
regarding appearance, to every individual. An example would be
to assume that all Mexican people are Hispanic, or all Jews are
white, ignoring the diversity of the ethnic Jewish diaspora, such
as African, Latino/a, Sephardic, or Mizrahi Jewry, or that there are
Native American Mexicans that do not have Hispanic origins.
The above is not an exhaustive list and does not constitute every
type or example of ethnoconvenience, but rather provides some
examples. It is evident from these examples that these are usually
related to visual assumption and inattentional bias, as well as with
colorblindness, colorism, stereotyping, and implicit bias, and as
such, they are examples of attitudes or behaviors of tolerance that
can create intolerant environments. Ethnoconvenience can lead to
numerous social ramifications and can affect victims of its practice
in numerous ways.
Ignoring an individual’s ethnicity, race, culture, and identity
can leave those individuals feeling misidentified, misunderstood,
and insulted, and the ethnoconvenient acts of purposefully
dismissing an individual’s race, ethnicity, or culture can create
a negative, dispute-like, clashing relationship. Additionally, the
failure to identify and the blatant mis-categorization of individuals
can leave them feeling marginalized and delegitimized. People are
proud of their heritage, culture, and background, and strongly
identify with their races, ethnicities, and cultures as major
definitions of their selves [24].
Ethnic pride and belonging are two main parts of ethnic
identity, so it is not unlikely that separating or questioning
people’s identity from their present beings can affect feelings of
pride and belonging and cause problems for the individuals, and
for the group or organization that they belong to or interact in.
These practices and behaviors of ethnoconvenience, whether
blatant, inattentional, or implicit, can thus serve as tools of
deculturalization. Furthermore, mistaking, avoiding, ignoring,
or dismissing people’s races, ethnicities, and cultures can place
them into different identity groups, and potentially into the whitecentric
dominant group in the dominant-subjugated culture—a
group to which they do not belong or did not extensively
experience through life, thus creating unwanted tokenization or
forced social assimilation.
Ultimately, ethnoconvenience places an incorrect, false, or
incomplete identity on PoC as a result of assumptions made
under implicit bias and white privilege for convenient personal,
group, organizational, or political agendas, among others. This
results in identifying people incorrectly, often as white, and either
misplacing or minimizing their experiences, their individualities,
their identities, and their struggles. It is understandable how
ethnoconveniencing people and misidentifying them as white,
model minority, or dominant-belonging serves to delegitimize
their identities and their struggles in national dominantsubjugated
environments. Altogether, these behaviors can have
a social and psychological effects on individuals and create
feelings of denigration, like other types of racist or racially-driven
behaviors do.
Conclusion
Racism has been a pervasive problem over the course of
history in the United States. Even with great progress over
generations, there continue to be issues related to race, color, and
culture and a continuing disparity regarding equity and inclusion
based on race and ethnicity across the nation, in communities
and in organizations. Despite the progress made, the dominantsubjugated
culture is perpetuated, and as a result as well as a
cause for perpetuation, certain attitudes, language, and behaviors
termed as tolerance, masqueraded as positive movement towards
equity, inclusion, and multiculturalism, are attitudes and behaviors
that preserve, promote, and propagate inequality and exclusion.
Among them is the attitude and behavior of ethnoconvenience.
This manuscript defines the practice and behavior of
ethnoconvenience and exhibits how it is closely related to and
how it accompanies white privilege, hidden bias, colorblindness,
sameness, colorism, stereotyping, and tokenization, among
others, as an attitude, language, and behavior of tolerance,
where tolerance is a term of racially-driven exclusion. The article
provides examples of ethnoconvenience and identifies the effects
that ethnoconvenience has on individuals that experience it,
including insult, conflict, denigration, deculturalization, and
delegitimization.
Comments
Post a Comment