Democracy, Racial

views updated

Democracy, Racial

The ideological construct referred to as the “Myth of Racial Democracy” continues to constitute the central framework for understanding the “racial commonsense” in Brazil, as well as in much of Latin America. The essence of this myth is contained within a traditional allegory addressing the origins of Brazil’s population, the “fable of the three races” (Da Matta 1997, p. 71). This fable holds that the Brazilian nation originated from three formerly discrete racial entities, Europeans, Africans, and Indians. These “races” subsequently mixed, each contributing to the formation of a uniquely Brazilian population, culturally and biologically fused.

The scholar Gilberto Freyre is credited with popularizing the notion of racial democracy in Brazil in the 1930s in his work New World in the Tropics: The Culture of Modern Brazil (1959). Confronted with scientific racism beliefs in the superiority of a white “race” and that mixed blood created degeneracy, Freyre proposed instead that “cross-breeding” produced hybrid vigor in humans, thereby enabling a bright future for the otherwise condemned dark Brazilian nation. He emphasized, for example, an uncommon flexibility on the part of Portuguese colonizers that made possible extensive miscegenation and claimed that mixed Brazilians were giving birth to a new meta-race, constituting a new world in the tropics.

The result of the Brazilian racial fusion, according to Freyre, was an “ethnic democracy, the almost perfect equality for all men [sic] regardless of race or color” (p. 7). In reality, Brazil is stratified along color lines, and Freyre’s academic musings reflect a romanticized view. His vision suggests a serious disjuncture between “ideal” versus “real” culture, between what Brazil is supposed to, or even said to, look like and how it actually is. Color or racial characteristics clearly correlate with lower socioeconomic status and disadvantaged life chances in general in Brazil. Individuals of varying degrees of African descent historically and in modern times occupy the lower rungs of the color hierarchy. The disparities along racial lines are produced and perpetuated by both historic and contemporary factors. Among the former is the early uneven industrialization among Brazilian states coupled with the concentration of non-whites in underdeveloped regions. Prominent among the contemporary factors is the continuation of negative black stereotyping that reverberates in countless areas, resulting in poorer educational experiences, police profiling and abuse, and discrimination in the labor market.

In this context marked by racial inequality, a majority of researchers view the racial democracy or miscegenation imagery as fostering a false conception of the reality of Brazilian racial dynamics, leading to the denial of racial discrimination. The myth has been described, for example, as an ideology of nondiscrimination and the prejudice of not having prejudice. This denial of racial discrimination on the part of both white and non-whites, then, is generally understood as the defining element of the myth.

In addition to masking racism, the Brazilianist literature further faults this construct for discouraging positive black racial identification and for neutralizing support for antiracism strategies. These two latter elements are believed to be highly correlated, as robust racial identities are generally considered a sine qua non of antiracist mobilization. In Brazil, racial subjectivity is diffuse, diluted in part by a traditional focus on ambiguous classification schemas. Furthermore, there has also been little history of the type of mass mobilizations against racial inequality that one might expect in such a context. Hence, participants in Brazil’s modest but growing black movement struggle to foster black racial identity formation among the masses at the service of antiracism.

Some researchers, however, question this wholly negative stance towards the myth of racial democracy. Rather than viewed primarily as an empirical description of racial dynamics characterized as “colorblind,” as elites have traditionally argued, the myth may instead constitute a moral high ground common to non-elite Brazilians that both recognizes and repudiates discrimination based on “race.” In fact, some newer research demonstrates that not only is there a keen awareness of racial discrimination in Brazil on the part of whites and non-whites alike, but there is also substantial support for antiracism measures. Hence, researchers argue that this racial fusion myth may be harnessed in ways that promote subordinate populations; the myth endorses the utopian dream of a less discriminatory society and thus can act as a charter for social action. Viewed as a positive cultural value, Roberto Da Matta wrote that we should “… elevate the myth of racial democracy as a patrimony that is capable of helping Brazil in … honoring its commitment to equalitarianism” (1997, p. 74).

In the end, myths are not necessarily untruths or statements of truth; rather, they are part of belief systems justifying specific cultural values and social rules. They can have a powerful impact on individuals because they communicate and reinforce particular commonsense understandings. The myth of racial democracy will continue to be scrutinized as long as Brazil is characterized by a disjuncture between “ideal” and “real” culture, between racial democracy and racial inequality. It is clear that higher rates of racial intermarriage do not in and of themselves ensure a society beyond the reach of racial discrimination.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey, Stanley R. 2004. Group Dominance and the Myth of Racial Democracy: Antiracism Attitudes in Brazil. American Sociological Review 69: 728–747.

Da Matta, Roberto. 1997. Notas Sobre o Racismo Á Brasileira. In Multiculturalismo e Racismo: uma Comparação Brasil— Estados Unidos, ed. J. Souza, 69–74. Brasilia, Brazil: Paralelo 15.