“My mother did not have civil rights under the law”: Family derived race categories in negotiating positions on Critical Race Theory

Abstract

How do persons negotiate the relevance of historic racial injustice for contemporary concerns? In this paper, I show that persons could develop and use racial categorizations in association with family relations to make salient (or not) the relevance of past racial injustice for contemporary concerns. I examined how people construct and orient to racial group membership as implying historical oppression, and its relevance for contemporary interracial relations in the form of supporting or opposing Critical Race Theory (CRT) teaching in the United States public school system. I examined debates and discussions on CRT televised in the American news media using discursive psychological approaches. Findings show that race categories were developed and used in relation to one's ancestors: parents, aunts and uncles, and distant generations. This was done to raise the salience of past racial injustice, which otherwise would involve offering historic or other social structural arguments. The use of family derived race categories at once personalized and enhanced the credibility of the speaker, and countered possible implications for taking responsibility for past actions. These family‐derived race categories were then a resource speakers could use to negotiate their position on CRT. These findings are discussed in relation to the relevance of time for negotiating racism. Further arguments are developed in relation to how an ethnomethodological approach can illuminate critical arguments on race and racism.

Focusing the critical race psychology lens: CRT and the psychological study of social issues

“…This has become especially important in recent years, as CRT has emerged as a talking point among political elites. Sambaraju (2024) begins this section by examining how opposition to CRT is made through references to racial group membership and explores how these themes relate to opposition to CRT. Richmond et al (2024) conclude this section by offering an analysis of the relationship between the understanding of and opposition to CRT.…”