Group Dominance and the Myth of Racial Democracy: Antiracism Attitudes in Brazil

Abstract

Group dominance perspectives contend that ideologies are central to the production and reproduction of racial oppression by their negative affect on attitudes toward antiracism initiatives. The Brazilian myth of racial democracy frequently is framed in this light, evoked as a racist ideology to explain an apparent lack of confrontation of racial inequality. Data from a 2000 probability sample of racial attitudes in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, contradict this long-held assertion, showing that most Brazilians in this state recognize racism as playing a role in Brazilian society, support the idea of affirmative action, and express interest in belonging to antiracism organizations. Moreover, opinions on affirmative action appear more strongly correlated with social class, as measured by education level, than race. As compared with results from the United States regarding opinions on similar selected affirmative action policies, the racial gap in Brazilian support for affirmative action is only moderate. Results also show that those who recognize the existence of racial discrimination in Brazil are more likely to support affirmative action. Implications for race theorizing from a group dominance perspective in Brazil as well as for antiracism strategies are addressed.

Affirmative Action Attitudes of Whites: Evidence from a List Experiment Survey in Brazil

“…In Latin America and Brazil, with few exceptions (e.g., AGUILAR et al, 2015;BAILEY, 2002BAILEY, , 2004BAILEY et al, 2015;BUENO and DUNNING, 2017;UFF, 2002;TURRA and VENTURI, 1995;SANTOS and SILVA, 2005), there is little public opinion research on racial issues. This study is unusual in that it maps the racial attitudes of college students in Brazil through a survey-experiment (see also TURGEON, CHAVES and WIVES, 2014;VIDIGAL, 2015), providing a more accurate picture of public opinion among those who oppose affirmative action policies in universities.…”

“…Socioeconomic inequality in Brazil has resulted in strong class cleavages that have traditionally been considered stronger than racial cleavages (BAILEY, 2004).…”

“…It is widely endorsed by both whites and blacks, thus serving to preclude the possibility of collective action by and for specific social groups (BAILEY, 2004). Denying that racial discrimination causes disadvantage to blacks is a central element of this myth, which impacts on both attitudes towards racial policies and actions against racism (BOBO and KLUEGEL, 1993).…”

Racial Democracy, Citizenship and Immigration: The United States Experience in Comparative Perspective

“…В той степени, в какой это соответствует действительности, возникает возможность пересмотра понятия расовой демократии. Бейли недавно отметил, что среди ученых формируется консенсус о том, что ранние критики расовой демократии склонны преувеличи вать ее недостатки [Bailey, 2004]. Так, Фрай и Шерифф попытались показать, что в бразильском обществе расовая демократия работает не столько как идеология, сколько как идеал, с помощью которого можно измерять и оценивать расовое неравенство [Fry, 2000;Sheriff, 2001].…”

Limites da lei de cotas nas universidades públicas federais

“…A "democracia racial" foi construída como um dos mitos duradouros que pavimentou o imaginário social brasileiro (Andrews, 1996;Bailey, 2004;Htun, 2004;Martins, Medeiros, & Nascimento, 2004), o qual, no nosso entendimento, operou como uma barreira político-ideológica, e parece ter inviabilizado, por décadas, o debate na perspectiva da emancipação e da justiça social sobre raça no País (Silva, 2011;Skidmore, 1992;Tavolaro, 2008). Até pouco tempo, não havia sequer um consenso sobre o significado da categoria raça (Francis & Tannuri-Pianto, 2012a;Harris et.…”