The Iceberg of Racism: Above and Below the Waterline.

With the help of alumni, students and parents, we have been pondering how we respond to our newly heightened awareness of race issues; just as we did for the #MeToo movement for example.  For me, the move from a non-racist to an anti-racist approach seems a good way to think about it, and my readings and discussions have challenged some of my beliefs about how individuals, organisations and societies change.  That's not to say that we need to adopt all the ideas that are floating around; we need to find our own way through this contested area.

I have, until now, tended to think that when you want to change behaviour, you should always start by considering the 'iceberg' that shows how behaviours emerge (here and here for example).  According to this model, if you can influence the unseen drivers of behaviour below the waterline, then you're going to have a bigger impact than if you just address the actions or behaviours, above the waterline.  In short, go for the foundations.

The classic model; that behaviours are a result of deep underlying cognitive structures source

There is wisdom in this model; I've consciously applied it with success as a teacher, principal and parent.  When there is a problem, say a bullying issue, we do not simply act to punish a bully; we seek to understand motivation, attitudes, values - and then to reflect these back to the bully, often in the presence of the victim (what's called a restorative justice model).  Our experience has been that by addressing matters under the waterline, actions and behaviours change.  It solves the problem - which is a far more powerful and long-lasting effect than driving it underground by fear of punishment, or worse still, expelling a student under an over-zealous zero-tolerance approach which merely pushes a bully to another school where the behaviours likely repeat.

While this model fits with us philosophically, it's really because I have seen it work so often that I am confident of it as an approach.  And it seems to suggest that if we can get the attitudes right, then the actions follow - and schools are in the business of shaping attitudes.  In terms of racism, perhaps it means that if we get our work on heart and minds right, then racist events will cease.  And we do work on hearts and minds; but I've also come to wonder if this is enough.

Historian and activist Ibram Kendi makes the case that historically, the iceberg model is the wrong way around; that it was racist actions that preceded and generated racist attitudes, not the other way around.  That is, he argues that the iceberg model has the causal arrow the wrong way around.  Kendi writes:

The source of racist ideas was not ignorance and hate, but self-interest. The history of racist ideas is the history of powerful policymakers erecting racist policies out of self-interest, then producing racist ideas to defend and rationalize the inequitable effects of their policies, while everyday people consume those racist ideas, which in turn sparks ignorance and hate. 

His argument is that while there may have always been racist incidents, systemic racism took off when racist ideas were invoked to justify slavery and oppression.  And then, of course, the ideas further exacerbated the exploitation.  If that's right, then it may well be that the best way to address hearts and minds is to address behaviours; and Kendi argues repeatedly that policy change is the most effective thing here, not a focus on hearts and minds:

Treating ignorance and hate and expecting racism to shrink... [is] like treating a cancer patient’s symptoms and expecting the tumors to shrink. The body politic might feel better momentarily from the treatment—from trying to eradicate hate and ignorance—but as long as the underlying cause remains, the tumors grow, the symptoms return, and inequities spread like cancer cells, threatening the life of the body politic. Education... is not only a failed strategy... [it]is a suicidal strategy.

So if hate and ignorance are symptoms, then any 'hearts and minds' approach would not address underlying causes. Kendi's argument is essentially that we need to address behaviours, and once the behaviours change, the attitudes will follow.  It's not remotely far-fetched, when put as baldly as that; it's how attitudes to children, women, the LGBTQ community, inter-racial marriage, and no doubt many other attitudes, have changed - after legislation.  It's the opposite to what I had always thought.

That said, Kendi is looking at the level of society, where the rule of law is the operating standard.  That's not how most successful schools run; we do not run by policy and compliance, and rigid adherence to rules-  not least because we want to develop students with autonomy, and the ability to question and argue, even if that's more difficult than just following rigid rules.  So there also has to be room for the 'below the waterline' stuff of the iceberg.  Kendi's challenge is therefore not to replace, but to complement our approaches to change.  If he's right, that the best way to win hearts and minds is to change actions first; that is, that if you drag the top of the iceberg then the rest will follow, then there.  There is much to think about what that might mean for schools.

References

• Grundy, S (2020) The False Promise of Anti-racism Books.  The Atlantic.
• Kendi, I. (2019) How to be an Anti-Racist. One World Books
• Kendi, I (2020) Stamped. Little Brown Books