What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism
Efforts at colorblindness and antiracism have not been very effective in addressing racial tensions in the United States.
Colorblindness ignores the realities of race and the history of injustice. On the other hand, antiracism centers racial concerns and in so doing often alienates people who need to be involved in the process.
Sociologist George Yancey offers an alternative approach to racial relations where all parties contribute and are mutually accountable to one another for societal well-being. He provides empirical rationale for how collaborative conversations in a mutual accountability model can reduce racial division. History and societal complexity mean that different participants may have different kinds of responsibility, but all are involved in seeking the common good for all to thrive. Avoiding unilateral decisions that close off dialogue, Yancey casts a vision for moving beyond racial alienation toward a lifestyle and movement of collaborative conversation and mutuality.
Colorblindness ignores the realities of race and the history of injustice. On the other hand, antiracism centers racial concerns and in so doing often alienates people who need to be involved in the process.
Sociologist George Yancey offers an alternative approach to racial relations where all parties contribute and are mutually accountable to one another for societal well-being. He provides empirical rationale for how collaborative conversations in a mutual accountability model can reduce racial division. History and societal complexity mean that different participants may have different kinds of responsibility, but all are involved in seeking the common good for all to thrive. Avoiding unilateral decisions that close off dialogue, Yancey casts a vision for moving beyond racial alienation toward a lifestyle and movement of collaborative conversation and mutuality.
224 pages, Paperback
First published March 8, 2022
22 people are currently reading
381 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
May 17, 2022
Summary: Proposes as an alternative to colorblind or antiracist approaches, one of collaborative conversation and mutual accountability to overcome racial divisions.
I witnessed it in our Ohio senatorial primary. One candidate stood at the Edmund Pettus Bridge invoking Dr. King in support of race blind policies. Another candidate spoke against the ire raised by being called “racist” for concern about people entering the country illegally. I do not wish to debate these claims but to cite them as an example of the divergent approaches being used to address the racial fault lines in this country: one being colorblindness, arguing that it is the emphasis on race that exacerbates our divisions, particular the invidious label of “racist.” The other is the “antiracist” strategy, one that is used widely in various forms in diversity training. It argues that a majority group inherently seeks to preserve its power and to subordinate others. Antiracism challenges all the systems and structures that maintain this power, demands activism (“you are either an antiracist or a racist”), and that whites must support antiracist efforts of blacks by persuading other whites and pressing for financial restitution for historic abuses.
George Yancey, a black sociologist at Baylor University believes neither of these strategies are working, and are actually contributing to deepening divisions. Colorblindness fails to acknowledge the present effects of historic abuses and the systems and structures that sustain discrimination against racial groups. Antiracist approaches often antagonize and alienate the very parties needed to make progress in addressing racial ills, shaming and stigmatizing those they consider the problem. They may gain grudging compliance or achieve political victories while fostering ongoing resentments and resistance.
What he proposes instead is a mutual accountability model. He describes this model as follows:
"This model stipulates that we work to have healthy interracial communications so that we can solve racial problems. In those communications we strive to listen to those in other racial groups and attempt to account for their interests. In this way we fashion solutions to racialized problems that address the needs of individuals across racial groups instead of promoting solutions that are accepted only by certain racial groups. By allowing those we disagree with to hold us “accountable” to their interests, we are forced to confront the ways we have fashioned solutions that conform to our own interests and desires."
YANCEY, P. 35.
Active listening is an essential skill necessary to these collaborative conversations–the listening that seeks to understand rather than to fashion an argumentative response. It is an approach that take problem-solving rather than venting seriously, following this process:
1. Define the racial problem.
2. Identify what we have in common.
3. Recognize our cultural or racial differences.
4. Create solutions that answer the concerns of the racial outgroup.
5. Find a compromise solution that works best for all. (p. 46)
Before going on to contend for this model, he addresses the failure of colorblindness to address the reality of institutional discrimination and the failure of antiracism due to its reliance on power and compulsion rather than the moral suasion where former adversaries become convinced allies.
Yancey offers empirical support for his model with a qualification. He cites research showing the effectiveness of mutual accountability in fostering agreement and collaboration between parties. The big “but” is that no significant research has yet been done on the effectiveness of this model in reducing racial bias, although some research from diversity programs suggest that “intergroup contact and cooperative interventions within diversity training efforts have promising potential to reduce prejudice.” He then turns to theological support for his model, noting the examples of resolution of intergroup conflict such as Acts 6. In a world under the illusion of human perfectibility, the Bible reminds us of our depravity and the folly of relying on our own intelligence and moral sense. Finally, he considers how mutual accountability might work in our lives.
He concludes with a call for a mutual accountability movement in addressing racial issues. He offers the example of Sean Sheppard, founder and CEO of Game Changer, a California-based organization working with communities and police departments using collaborative conversation and mutual accountability methods. While not seeing himself as a movement organizer, he hopes to mobilize social media influencers and to promote the work of the Baylor Program for Collaborative Conversation and Race, a research and training center to fill the gap in empirical research in apply mutual accountability models to racial issues.
I have to acknowledge that my response to this work is that of a white boomer male. I admit to having felt shamed and stigmatized and silenced precisely because of that status, which I cannot change no matter how much I do in the cause of antiracism. I also have seen how inadequate colorblind solutions are, which I believe are attempts to “heal lightly our nation’s racial wounds.” Yancey gives word to the lack of ease I’ve had with both of these approaches. What he advocates seems to me to be rooted in the way of peace and reconciliation I’ve learned as a Christian.
Still, I find myself wondering whether this alone is adequate. I can’t imagine there being those willing to sit down in conversations of mutual accountability to desegregate schools, public accommodations, or grant voting rights. Strategies of court cases, disciplined protest marches and boycotts, non-violent resistance, and the return of love for hate were necessary because no one was at the table with them.
I also wonder how words like “mutual” and “collaborative” work when through history Blacks have born far more than their share of the burden of reconciling our race relations. I think there is a point to be heard in the insistence of antiracist trainers that Whites “need to do the work.” I suspect that language can alienate, but I’m afraid that Yancey’s language could allow those in the majority culture to offload their own responsibility in an unhelpful way.
Still, while there have been real advances in civil rights, I see us more deeply racially polarized and tribalized than almost any time in my adult life, despite extensive DEI efforts in many companies and institutions. Might it be time to try approaches that get people together as collaborators in shared solutions to which they are mutually accountable? That’s the question Yancey is asking, and one that I think is not unreasonable, based on both research and the failings of other approaches.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
I witnessed it in our Ohio senatorial primary. One candidate stood at the Edmund Pettus Bridge invoking Dr. King in support of race blind policies. Another candidate spoke against the ire raised by being called “racist” for concern about people entering the country illegally. I do not wish to debate these claims but to cite them as an example of the divergent approaches being used to address the racial fault lines in this country: one being colorblindness, arguing that it is the emphasis on race that exacerbates our divisions, particular the invidious label of “racist.” The other is the “antiracist” strategy, one that is used widely in various forms in diversity training. It argues that a majority group inherently seeks to preserve its power and to subordinate others. Antiracism challenges all the systems and structures that maintain this power, demands activism (“you are either an antiracist or a racist”), and that whites must support antiracist efforts of blacks by persuading other whites and pressing for financial restitution for historic abuses.
George Yancey, a black sociologist at Baylor University believes neither of these strategies are working, and are actually contributing to deepening divisions. Colorblindness fails to acknowledge the present effects of historic abuses and the systems and structures that sustain discrimination against racial groups. Antiracist approaches often antagonize and alienate the very parties needed to make progress in addressing racial ills, shaming and stigmatizing those they consider the problem. They may gain grudging compliance or achieve political victories while fostering ongoing resentments and resistance.
What he proposes instead is a mutual accountability model. He describes this model as follows:
"This model stipulates that we work to have healthy interracial communications so that we can solve racial problems. In those communications we strive to listen to those in other racial groups and attempt to account for their interests. In this way we fashion solutions to racialized problems that address the needs of individuals across racial groups instead of promoting solutions that are accepted only by certain racial groups. By allowing those we disagree with to hold us “accountable” to their interests, we are forced to confront the ways we have fashioned solutions that conform to our own interests and desires."
YANCEY, P. 35.
Active listening is an essential skill necessary to these collaborative conversations–the listening that seeks to understand rather than to fashion an argumentative response. It is an approach that take problem-solving rather than venting seriously, following this process:
1. Define the racial problem.
2. Identify what we have in common.
3. Recognize our cultural or racial differences.
4. Create solutions that answer the concerns of the racial outgroup.
5. Find a compromise solution that works best for all. (p. 46)
Before going on to contend for this model, he addresses the failure of colorblindness to address the reality of institutional discrimination and the failure of antiracism due to its reliance on power and compulsion rather than the moral suasion where former adversaries become convinced allies.
Yancey offers empirical support for his model with a qualification. He cites research showing the effectiveness of mutual accountability in fostering agreement and collaboration between parties. The big “but” is that no significant research has yet been done on the effectiveness of this model in reducing racial bias, although some research from diversity programs suggest that “intergroup contact and cooperative interventions within diversity training efforts have promising potential to reduce prejudice.” He then turns to theological support for his model, noting the examples of resolution of intergroup conflict such as Acts 6. In a world under the illusion of human perfectibility, the Bible reminds us of our depravity and the folly of relying on our own intelligence and moral sense. Finally, he considers how mutual accountability might work in our lives.
He concludes with a call for a mutual accountability movement in addressing racial issues. He offers the example of Sean Sheppard, founder and CEO of Game Changer, a California-based organization working with communities and police departments using collaborative conversation and mutual accountability methods. While not seeing himself as a movement organizer, he hopes to mobilize social media influencers and to promote the work of the Baylor Program for Collaborative Conversation and Race, a research and training center to fill the gap in empirical research in apply mutual accountability models to racial issues.
I have to acknowledge that my response to this work is that of a white boomer male. I admit to having felt shamed and stigmatized and silenced precisely because of that status, which I cannot change no matter how much I do in the cause of antiracism. I also have seen how inadequate colorblind solutions are, which I believe are attempts to “heal lightly our nation’s racial wounds.” Yancey gives word to the lack of ease I’ve had with both of these approaches. What he advocates seems to me to be rooted in the way of peace and reconciliation I’ve learned as a Christian.
Still, I find myself wondering whether this alone is adequate. I can’t imagine there being those willing to sit down in conversations of mutual accountability to desegregate schools, public accommodations, or grant voting rights. Strategies of court cases, disciplined protest marches and boycotts, non-violent resistance, and the return of love for hate were necessary because no one was at the table with them.
I also wonder how words like “mutual” and “collaborative” work when through history Blacks have born far more than their share of the burden of reconciling our race relations. I think there is a point to be heard in the insistence of antiracist trainers that Whites “need to do the work.” I suspect that language can alienate, but I’m afraid that Yancey’s language could allow those in the majority culture to offload their own responsibility in an unhelpful way.
Still, while there have been real advances in civil rights, I see us more deeply racially polarized and tribalized than almost any time in my adult life, despite extensive DEI efforts in many companies and institutions. Might it be time to try approaches that get people together as collaborators in shared solutions to which they are mutually accountable? That’s the question Yancey is asking, and one that I think is not unreasonable, based on both research and the failings of other approaches.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
September 6, 2022
I read Yancey’s Beyond Racial Gridlock two years ago and wished that it would get more attention. However, it was written in 2006, and obviously there have been a number of important developments in race relations since that time. In many ways this book updates his previous work. Perhaps this one also deserves 5 stars, but these ideas no longer strike me as novel.
Yancey now sees the that American’s views on race are polarized into two opposing camps, colorblindness and antiracism, and both seem to be pretty firmly entrenched.
If we still have to live with one another, and we do, then using power to defeat the opposition, be it political or otherwise, will not produce lasting change. The opposition will not simply go away, and there will always be another election.
Yancey believes that the only viable way forward is through the power of moral suasion, that is trying to persuade others to do what they believe is the right thing. But this requires empathy — being able to view these issues through the eyes of others. In order to develop empathy, we first need true relationships and understanding. Thus the only way for moral suasion to be effective is to have actual conversations, not lectures or debates, with people that disagree with us. Conversations where each participant is heard and accorded respect.
He describes a Mutual Accountability model that requires “collaborative conversations” to promote understanding and begin a process of reconciliation and compromise. This does not imply that compromises will always end up in the middle. One side will likely be required to give up more than the other. But the key here is to facilitate change of hearts, not just to dominate through force or intimidation.
One critical obstacle to progress is fear. According to MLK, “People fail to get along because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don’t know each other; they don’t know each other because they have not communicated with each other.“
Yancey further elaborates:
Yancey now sees the that American’s views on race are polarized into two opposing camps, colorblindness and antiracism, and both seem to be pretty firmly entrenched.
If we still have to live with one another, and we do, then using power to defeat the opposition, be it political or otherwise, will not produce lasting change. The opposition will not simply go away, and there will always be another election.
Yancey believes that the only viable way forward is through the power of moral suasion, that is trying to persuade others to do what they believe is the right thing. But this requires empathy — being able to view these issues through the eyes of others. In order to develop empathy, we first need true relationships and understanding. Thus the only way for moral suasion to be effective is to have actual conversations, not lectures or debates, with people that disagree with us. Conversations where each participant is heard and accorded respect.
He describes a Mutual Accountability model that requires “collaborative conversations” to promote understanding and begin a process of reconciliation and compromise. This does not imply that compromises will always end up in the middle. One side will likely be required to give up more than the other. But the key here is to facilitate change of hearts, not just to dominate through force or intimidation.
One critical obstacle to progress is fear. According to MLK, “People fail to get along because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don’t know each other; they don’t know each other because they have not communicated with each other.“
Yancey further elaborates:
“Whites fear being labeled racist, which can derail careers and ruin relationships. Therefore many whites either become aggressively defensive or extremely compliant when faced with the possibility of being labeled a racist. Neither defensiveness nor compliance is useful in a collaborative conversation. People of color fear being dismissed or even ridiculed if they bring up their racial concerns. There is rejection and stigma attached to the notion of an “angry” person of color. This can lead them to either be aggressive in asserting their demands or simply to refuse to speak up. Neither response is useful in the development of productive communication.
“This cycle of fear inhibits our recovery from racial abuse. Whites’ fear lead them to ignore racial issues. Their efforts to dismiss those issues feed into the fears of people of color that their concerns about racism will not be taken seriously. Thus people of color increase their support for leaders who foolishly play the race card, whereby members of a racial minority use racism accusations to gain leverage in a situation but who take seriously concerns about racial justice. Playing the race card and similar acts only increase the fears of whites because they become concerned they will be labeled as racist no matter what they do. As whites’ fears intensify, they increase their efforts to push for colorblindness, which then exacerbates the fears of people of color. And the cycle of fear continues, deepening with each revolution through the cycle, and our dysfunctional race relations just deteriorate as we talk past each other instead of to each other.”
August 9, 2025
In some ways, this book feels common sense. The way to heal racial division is to listen, to confess and forgive, to care for the other person(s), and to compromise.
In other ways, it's groundbreaking. The two worlds I've walked offer only two options: colorblindness ideology or antiracist ideology. I've tried both. I've found both wanting.
And the spaces where I have grown the most, and built actual relationship (oh so slowly) and seen glimmers of hope of mutual flourishing have fallen in this third category: collaborative conversations born out of mutual accountability. Majority (white) and minority (poc) groups can share a goal and share a commitment to the good of the other. That's the way forward. A cliche. But humble love is the path to shared joy.
Yancey demonstrates ineffectiveness of colorblindness and antiracism, defines mutual accountability, offers empirical and theological evidence for that approach, and gives individual and institutional steps forward for engaging in collaborative conversations. He does not shy away from racialized realities, naming institutional discrimination and personal racism. He also calls out the silencing of opponents through fear and for revenge. He longs for relational healing on a personal, local, and national level. Mutual accountability moves us in that direction.
I'm in.
In other ways, it's groundbreaking. The two worlds I've walked offer only two options: colorblindness ideology or antiracist ideology. I've tried both. I've found both wanting.
And the spaces where I have grown the most, and built actual relationship (oh so slowly) and seen glimmers of hope of mutual flourishing have fallen in this third category: collaborative conversations born out of mutual accountability. Majority (white) and minority (poc) groups can share a goal and share a commitment to the good of the other. That's the way forward. A cliche. But humble love is the path to shared joy.
Yancey demonstrates ineffectiveness of colorblindness and antiracism, defines mutual accountability, offers empirical and theological evidence for that approach, and gives individual and institutional steps forward for engaging in collaborative conversations. He does not shy away from racialized realities, naming institutional discrimination and personal racism. He also calls out the silencing of opponents through fear and for revenge. He longs for relational healing on a personal, local, and national level. Mutual accountability moves us in that direction.
I'm in.
March 1, 2022
I believe "Beyond Racial Division" is one of the most important books on the issue of race relations in the United States. In a culture that is deeply polarized between the extremities of Antiracism and Colorblind ideologies, Yancey believes that, these social movements "will not succeed in eradicating the problem of racial alienation" (p.139).
These secular race theories are based on the humanistic assumption of perfectibility - that "rationality, reason, and science are believed to be able to guide us to a better world;" and that activism and education will lead to this utopian outcome (p.134).
Yancey argues that we need a new path. Drawing from sociological theory and historic Christianity, he shifts the starting point from perfectibility to assuming human depravity. "If we do not have such confidence in human ability, then we will be humbler about our ability to develop moral and ethical systems that serve us all. If we believe we are all compromised by something like human depravity... then having mechanisms that allow us to compensate for our depravity is critical" (p.138).
Based on this assumption, he offers the third way of "mutual accountability" through the mechanism of collaborative conversations to break the "cycle of dysfunctional racial relationships" (p.168). I encourage you to buy to book to find out more. It's worth every cent!
This book is both poetic and prophetic. It is poetic in that Yancey has put into a framework the ideas I have been sensing, but have struggled to articulate. It is prophetic in that the challenge he lays out isn't some rose-tinted, idealistic notion. It demands that we all "take up our cross and follow."
Is this a religious or a secular book? It is both - as it looks at race through the lenses of both the temporal and eternal dimensions. This book defies categories - because it truly seeks to get "beyond racial division" and presents a conciliatory, unifying alternative.
These secular race theories are based on the humanistic assumption of perfectibility - that "rationality, reason, and science are believed to be able to guide us to a better world;" and that activism and education will lead to this utopian outcome (p.134).
Yancey argues that we need a new path. Drawing from sociological theory and historic Christianity, he shifts the starting point from perfectibility to assuming human depravity. "If we do not have such confidence in human ability, then we will be humbler about our ability to develop moral and ethical systems that serve us all. If we believe we are all compromised by something like human depravity... then having mechanisms that allow us to compensate for our depravity is critical" (p.138).
Based on this assumption, he offers the third way of "mutual accountability" through the mechanism of collaborative conversations to break the "cycle of dysfunctional racial relationships" (p.168). I encourage you to buy to book to find out more. It's worth every cent!
This book is both poetic and prophetic. It is poetic in that Yancey has put into a framework the ideas I have been sensing, but have struggled to articulate. It is prophetic in that the challenge he lays out isn't some rose-tinted, idealistic notion. It demands that we all "take up our cross and follow."
Is this a religious or a secular book? It is both - as it looks at race through the lenses of both the temporal and eternal dimensions. This book defies categories - because it truly seeks to get "beyond racial division" and presents a conciliatory, unifying alternative.
March 28, 2023
Lots of good thoughts in this book. I really appreciated the balanced approach to talk about race relations. Yancey broke down the shortcomings of both color blindness (pretending race doesn’t exist) and antiracism. I’ve read some criticism about the former and not that latter—it was helpful to hear what parts of antiracism are helpful and what parts are missing the mark, especially when it feels like the vast majority of media is in complete support of it.
He then proposed a different approach than each of these, a mutual accountability model, which involves activating listening and honest conversations between all parties involved.
I also appreciated how Yancey applied the Bible to race relations, pointing out that we can look to the Jews’ and Jesus’s interactions with Samaritans for examples. He also pointed out that Christians will have a fundamentally different outlook on race relations than humanists, in that Christians believe in human depravity and humanists believe society as a whole is getting better and more “evolved.” Humanists have no problem with shaming (or canceling) people who seem to be hindering progress toward and ideal “state.” Really helped me understand where they are coming from.
I do wish that the tone of the book was a little less academic—it was clearly exhaustively researched but for that reason sometimes it felt like reading a research paper. Also I struggle to see how the ideas would catch on in a political setting, but I could see how they would be helpful in friendships, church, and work. I wish there was a little more practical application!
He then proposed a different approach than each of these, a mutual accountability model, which involves activating listening and honest conversations between all parties involved.
I also appreciated how Yancey applied the Bible to race relations, pointing out that we can look to the Jews’ and Jesus’s interactions with Samaritans for examples. He also pointed out that Christians will have a fundamentally different outlook on race relations than humanists, in that Christians believe in human depravity and humanists believe society as a whole is getting better and more “evolved.” Humanists have no problem with shaming (or canceling) people who seem to be hindering progress toward and ideal “state.” Really helped me understand where they are coming from.
I do wish that the tone of the book was a little less academic—it was clearly exhaustively researched but for that reason sometimes it felt like reading a research paper. Also I struggle to see how the ideas would catch on in a political setting, but I could see how they would be helpful in friendships, church, and work. I wish there was a little more practical application!
December 20, 2023
I felt the author really misrepresented “anti racism” and seemed to jump between providing some good social science, to speculative possibilities and a total dismissal of anti racism work. The Collaborative Conversations approach that is offered as unique, incorporates practices I have witnessed throughout my own experience working in equity and inclusion work as anti racism work, both from a secular as well as a faith based lens and context. His comparisons are often grossly disproportional. Having attended the IVCF conference back in the late 1990’s where we lost Spencer Perkins, I see a shift in IVCF’s approach from then to now if this is a direction of their publications.
November 15, 2022
I'm on a personal quest to find, read and follow voices who are trying to find balance between the polarizing narratives of the far right and left. Can anyone provide reasonable, well-thought out pathways through the difficult and complex cultural issues we face? Even better, can they do that with an authentically biblical worldview?
George Yancey aims to do exactly that in this book and I am truly grateful. Exposing the good but especially the inadequacy of antiracism and colourblindness approaches to racial division, the author charts a path forward that is admittedly difficult, slow and vulnerable, but filled with hope. It involves listening openly to the experiences of others to find true understanding (active listening) rather than points to argue with or attack. A "mutual accountability" through these "collaborative conversations" are essentially a call to work together towards a common goal - racial harmony. It is impossible to do so if we won't listen to each other and have empathy for one another.
As a white reader, I was definitely challenged on some of my presuppositions around a colourblindness approach. While I do not deny the realities and legacy of historical racism and acknowledge that systemic racism is real today (and fits with a Christian understanding of depravity), I did tend to see the end goal as one where race ultimately does not matter. While I still hold that this is ultimately true (we are all one human race and have equal inherent value), I understand better how this diminishes the value and beauty of diverse ethnicities and also how this ultimate truth sometimes leads me to want to "just get past" all this racism talk and not deal with the experience and realities of people of colour.
In our polarized culture, there is no room for nuance but this book is full of it. While I was challenged, I appreciated that the author spoke to the good of both viewpoints, while also explaining why on their own they cannot succeed. There is a real need for justice and change because of past and enduring discrimination. Some of the current discrimination is unintentional and even at odds with what we truly want but stubbornly persists. Not all whites are automatically racist, and our entire society is not characterized by racism, but we are "racialized" as a society and there are very real systemic problems that need serious attention.
I hope that Yancey and other voices are able to rise to the top and pull together what I believe is the majority of people. Most of us want reconciliation, harmony and fairness and we know things are not fine the way they are. But the current voices driving hard on the farther sides of both sides of the spectrum are not presenting a tenable path forward and are deepening the divide. I will continue to look for voices like Yancey's and am happy to recommend this book to anyone who wants a balanced, honest and hopeful vision for how we can heal and move forward.
George Yancey aims to do exactly that in this book and I am truly grateful. Exposing the good but especially the inadequacy of antiracism and colourblindness approaches to racial division, the author charts a path forward that is admittedly difficult, slow and vulnerable, but filled with hope. It involves listening openly to the experiences of others to find true understanding (active listening) rather than points to argue with or attack. A "mutual accountability" through these "collaborative conversations" are essentially a call to work together towards a common goal - racial harmony. It is impossible to do so if we won't listen to each other and have empathy for one another.
As a white reader, I was definitely challenged on some of my presuppositions around a colourblindness approach. While I do not deny the realities and legacy of historical racism and acknowledge that systemic racism is real today (and fits with a Christian understanding of depravity), I did tend to see the end goal as one where race ultimately does not matter. While I still hold that this is ultimately true (we are all one human race and have equal inherent value), I understand better how this diminishes the value and beauty of diverse ethnicities and also how this ultimate truth sometimes leads me to want to "just get past" all this racism talk and not deal with the experience and realities of people of colour.
In our polarized culture, there is no room for nuance but this book is full of it. While I was challenged, I appreciated that the author spoke to the good of both viewpoints, while also explaining why on their own they cannot succeed. There is a real need for justice and change because of past and enduring discrimination. Some of the current discrimination is unintentional and even at odds with what we truly want but stubbornly persists. Not all whites are automatically racist, and our entire society is not characterized by racism, but we are "racialized" as a society and there are very real systemic problems that need serious attention.
I hope that Yancey and other voices are able to rise to the top and pull together what I believe is the majority of people. Most of us want reconciliation, harmony and fairness and we know things are not fine the way they are. But the current voices driving hard on the farther sides of both sides of the spectrum are not presenting a tenable path forward and are deepening the divide. I will continue to look for voices like Yancey's and am happy to recommend this book to anyone who wants a balanced, honest and hopeful vision for how we can heal and move forward.
July 11, 2022
Until now I’ve tended to read books on the history, reality, and consequences of racism by authors like Isabel Wilkerson, Jemar Tisby, Bryan Stevenson, Esau McCaulley, and others. I’ve devoted less attention to books on how to deal with racism and racial divisions.
George Yancey takes issue with two current approaches to racism: colorblindness and antiracism, the latter of which is very much part of the racial Zeitgeist of this moment. He proposes a third way to approach racial division, based on mutual accountability. Beyond Racial Division deserves a wide reading, especially in the broader Protestant Evangelical community of which Mr. Yancey is a part.
Beyond Racial Division would be a great resource for discussion groups and working groups on race relations within communities. To that end it would be well if it included discussion questions or if it were accompanied by a discussion guide. Individual readers (white readers like myself) who struggle with how to approach race relations will benefit from reading it with or without supplied discussion aids.
George Yancey takes issue with two current approaches to racism: colorblindness and antiracism, the latter of which is very much part of the racial Zeitgeist of this moment. He proposes a third way to approach racial division, based on mutual accountability. Beyond Racial Division deserves a wide reading, especially in the broader Protestant Evangelical community of which Mr. Yancey is a part.
Beyond Racial Division would be a great resource for discussion groups and working groups on race relations within communities. To that end it would be well if it included discussion questions or if it were accompanied by a discussion guide. Individual readers (white readers like myself) who struggle with how to approach race relations will benefit from reading it with or without supplied discussion aids.
March 17, 2022
I have followed George Yancey’s work for several years. As a black Christian sociologist, who is a professor at Baylor University, Yancey is uniquely suited to offer a third approach to racial relations in our country, which he calls a mutual accountability model or collaborative conversations. I have read many books over the last several years from an anti racism perspective, which tend to alienate people who need to be brought into collaborate discussions and also ignore Christian categories of sin and repentance. I have also read several recent works from a colorblind perspective, which ignore the reality of a history of injustice and current consequences from that long history in our country. Yancey’s vision to move beyond alienation and towards collaborative conversation, as described particularly in chapter 6, “The Theological Basis of Mutual Accountability”, warrants my very highest recommendation for all to read.
June 18, 2022
It seems that the discussion about race is a lot like dodgeball. You line up and start flinging your balls at your opponent in the hopes to be the last person standing. There is no room or time to think-just throw and dodge or deflect. I've watched the two camps of Colorblindness and Antiracism become more and more hostile to each other so that no one is listening-just throwing accusations at each other.
George Yancey suggests a new approach that is balanced, fair and seeks understanding over who is right. His book makes sense, yet it will take people who are humble enough to put down their balls (or flaming arrows) and work toward understanding the other side instead of vilifying them. Are we ready to seek unity, or continue the path that is separating us more and more? I believe Yancey shows us a better way.
George Yancey suggests a new approach that is balanced, fair and seeks understanding over who is right. His book makes sense, yet it will take people who are humble enough to put down their balls (or flaming arrows) and work toward understanding the other side instead of vilifying them. Are we ready to seek unity, or continue the path that is separating us more and more? I believe Yancey shows us a better way.
June 7, 2025
3.5 stars.
I really appreciated Yancey's message in this book, and I truly believe that collaborative communication will begin the process of rectifying racial conflict in this country. I have found in my own personal relationships that sitting down and talking with people brings out the best in conflicts.
However, this book felt incredibly repetitive. Every single chapter boiled down to "colorblindness is bad, anti-racism is bad, communication is key." I wish he had brought more nuance to the situation and had actually done some of his own research to add depth. I also wish he had chosen one target audience. It felt like he was playing multiple fields, Christian, secular, colorblind, anti-racism, etc. to the point where he was repeating himself four times a chapter.
I really appreciated Yancey's message in this book, and I truly believe that collaborative communication will begin the process of rectifying racial conflict in this country. I have found in my own personal relationships that sitting down and talking with people brings out the best in conflicts.
However, this book felt incredibly repetitive. Every single chapter boiled down to "colorblindness is bad, anti-racism is bad, communication is key." I wish he had brought more nuance to the situation and had actually done some of his own research to add depth. I also wish he had chosen one target audience. It felt like he was playing multiple fields, Christian, secular, colorblind, anti-racism, etc. to the point where he was repeating himself four times a chapter.
March 22, 2022
Excellent book. I think George offers us the best constructive path forward for dealing with racial alienation in our culture.
Even if you do not agree with every point he makes in the book, you can get much out of his critiques of colorblindness and antiracism, as well as his arguments for collaborative conversation.
Even if you do not agree with every point he makes in the book, you can get much out of his critiques of colorblindness and antiracism, as well as his arguments for collaborative conversation.
Read
May 4, 2022Refreshing. Highly recommend.
September 25, 2023
Had to read for class. Not bad, but not my fav. Kinda a waste of time.
March 31, 2022
In this unique, well-argued book, sociologist George Yancey pushes back against the excesses and inherent flaws in colorblindness and antiracism mindsets, arguing that we need to be able to engage in "collaborative conversations" to move forward towards genuine justice and healing. He writes from his vantage point as a black man, and he also includes stories and perspectives from white people and other people of color throughout the book, showing how existing models for dealing with racial tension fall short and leave people out of the conversation when they are unwilling to ascribe to an ideology wholesale. Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism recommends a "mutual accountability model" in which people discuss issues and try to reach solutions across racial lines, and Yancey provides a clear, nuanced rationale for why this will work better than current approaches.
Why Colorblindness and Antiracism Fail
Yancey explains that even though motivations behind colorblindness are often positive, efforts to treat everyone equally fall short when people ignore specific issues that people of color face in America. On the other hand, he argues that antiracism dooms itself at the start by relegating white people to a "kid's table" where they can't have a say in strategies or outcomes, teaching them that their voices are irrelevant unless they are promoting the views of black antiracists. He argues that this perspective only worsens racial alienation, and can also create new abuses of power within a new hierarchy. He gives the hypothetical example of a black man getting away with sexual harassment against a white woman, simply because the man can claim that she is a racist attacking him with a nasty stereotype. Just because someone has been victimized doesn't mean that they won't victimize others.
Yancey also contends that it is impossible to reach long-term solutions without addressing human depravity. Neither colorblindness nor antiracism account for the sinfulness of human beings, their willingness to abuse power, and the likelihood of people advocating for the social solutions that best fit and benefit them, regardless of the impact that these changes would have on others. However, in a mutual accountability approach to racial issues, people have to communicate and take others' opinions into account, instead of trying to force their solutions on everyone else. Yancey also points out that even if your solution really is the best, if a large subset of the population disagrees with you, then they will sabotage your efforts to implement that plan.
Empirical Evidence
Throughout the book, Yancey provides real-world, empirical examples to prove his points. For example, he references current school board battles to illustrate the ineffectiveness of forcing a new plan without taking other stakeholders' voices into account, and he shares statistics related to the failures of organization-mandated diversity trainings, in comparison to voluntary diversity trainings. Evidence shows that antiracism diversity trainings often have the opposite effect of what the organizers intend, creating resentment without effecting any positive change in the company's culture or hiring and promotion practices. I was surprised to learn that there are already longitudinal studies on this, and it's telling that so much of this information isn't openly shared with the public, since there are such strong business interests in current models of diversity conferences and diversity trainings.
Yancey also provides empirical evidence for his alternative model. Although there are not many studies related to collaborative conversations in a racial context, hopeful evidence abounds in studies about other spheres of life, and of course studies show that moral persuasion leads to far better results than condemnation, accusation, and public shaming. At the end, Yancey writes about the work that is yet to be done to advocate for and provide evidence in favor of this third path, and he hopes that people will focus academic inquiry, popular writing, and personal conversations about race on this framework in the future to test it out and share it.
Audience and Reach
Yancey writes from a Christian perspective, but this book is accessible to people of all beliefs. One chapter specifically focuses on the theological underpinnings of his mutual accountability framework, and he speaks to Christians directly there, but he wrote the rest of the book with a general audience in mind. I hope that this book will gain a wide reading, and I plan to recommend it for purchase in my library system. I found this book extremely helpful, clear, and timely, and Yancey embodies his recommended strategy well by writing in a nuanced, thoughtful way that takes other people's opinions seriously. He explains why people believe in colorblindness or antiracism, acknowledges the good intentions of most people, and engages with people's best arguments for their views, instead of picking on the weakest or most extreme elements.
I highly recommend Beyond Racial Division to anyone who is concerned about racial alienation, especially if they feel burnt out on existing models or feel like they must ascribe to a wholesale ideology to speak about racial issues in their setting. This is a must-read book for our cultural moment, and it is excellent for both individual and group reading. Also, because this book is so fair and well-balanced, people can recommend this to family members, friends, and colleagues who hold strongly to either colorblindness or antiracism views, without the book arguing for an opposite extreme. This book is full of thoughtful, nuanced, and well-argued perspectives, and different readers will have varying takeaways. The book offers opportunities for self-reflection and growth, regardless where someone lands ideologically, and I hope that it will receive the wide reading that it deserves.
I received a free copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Why Colorblindness and Antiracism Fail
Yancey explains that even though motivations behind colorblindness are often positive, efforts to treat everyone equally fall short when people ignore specific issues that people of color face in America. On the other hand, he argues that antiracism dooms itself at the start by relegating white people to a "kid's table" where they can't have a say in strategies or outcomes, teaching them that their voices are irrelevant unless they are promoting the views of black antiracists. He argues that this perspective only worsens racial alienation, and can also create new abuses of power within a new hierarchy. He gives the hypothetical example of a black man getting away with sexual harassment against a white woman, simply because the man can claim that she is a racist attacking him with a nasty stereotype. Just because someone has been victimized doesn't mean that they won't victimize others.
Yancey also contends that it is impossible to reach long-term solutions without addressing human depravity. Neither colorblindness nor antiracism account for the sinfulness of human beings, their willingness to abuse power, and the likelihood of people advocating for the social solutions that best fit and benefit them, regardless of the impact that these changes would have on others. However, in a mutual accountability approach to racial issues, people have to communicate and take others' opinions into account, instead of trying to force their solutions on everyone else. Yancey also points out that even if your solution really is the best, if a large subset of the population disagrees with you, then they will sabotage your efforts to implement that plan.
Empirical Evidence
Throughout the book, Yancey provides real-world, empirical examples to prove his points. For example, he references current school board battles to illustrate the ineffectiveness of forcing a new plan without taking other stakeholders' voices into account, and he shares statistics related to the failures of organization-mandated diversity trainings, in comparison to voluntary diversity trainings. Evidence shows that antiracism diversity trainings often have the opposite effect of what the organizers intend, creating resentment without effecting any positive change in the company's culture or hiring and promotion practices. I was surprised to learn that there are already longitudinal studies on this, and it's telling that so much of this information isn't openly shared with the public, since there are such strong business interests in current models of diversity conferences and diversity trainings.
Yancey also provides empirical evidence for his alternative model. Although there are not many studies related to collaborative conversations in a racial context, hopeful evidence abounds in studies about other spheres of life, and of course studies show that moral persuasion leads to far better results than condemnation, accusation, and public shaming. At the end, Yancey writes about the work that is yet to be done to advocate for and provide evidence in favor of this third path, and he hopes that people will focus academic inquiry, popular writing, and personal conversations about race on this framework in the future to test it out and share it.
Audience and Reach
Yancey writes from a Christian perspective, but this book is accessible to people of all beliefs. One chapter specifically focuses on the theological underpinnings of his mutual accountability framework, and he speaks to Christians directly there, but he wrote the rest of the book with a general audience in mind. I hope that this book will gain a wide reading, and I plan to recommend it for purchase in my library system. I found this book extremely helpful, clear, and timely, and Yancey embodies his recommended strategy well by writing in a nuanced, thoughtful way that takes other people's opinions seriously. He explains why people believe in colorblindness or antiracism, acknowledges the good intentions of most people, and engages with people's best arguments for their views, instead of picking on the weakest or most extreme elements.
I highly recommend Beyond Racial Division to anyone who is concerned about racial alienation, especially if they feel burnt out on existing models or feel like they must ascribe to a wholesale ideology to speak about racial issues in their setting. This is a must-read book for our cultural moment, and it is excellent for both individual and group reading. Also, because this book is so fair and well-balanced, people can recommend this to family members, friends, and colleagues who hold strongly to either colorblindness or antiracism views, without the book arguing for an opposite extreme. This book is full of thoughtful, nuanced, and well-argued perspectives, and different readers will have varying takeaways. The book offers opportunities for self-reflection and growth, regardless where someone lands ideologically, and I hope that it will receive the wide reading that it deserves.
I received a free copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
April 17, 2022
Loved this book. He shows where colorblindess and anti-racism fail (and he gave helpful explanations of both that I needed) and presents a third was forward. Honestly, most of what he is saying is 1) know your own sinful heart, 2) listen and engage with other people, 3) know that everyone has work to do in terms of race, holiness, and faithfulness.
Wish it was a bit more practical, but I also understand how he is reframing the entire race question.
Wish it was a bit more practical, but I also understand how he is reframing the entire race question.
March 23, 2022
In his newest book, Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative To Colorblindness and Antiracism, Baylor University sociologist George Yancey provides a “new path” forward on the topic of racial division. According to Yancey his way is a different path from the “colorblindness-antiracism dichotomy (3).” Yancey believes colorblindess to be “the path that goes nowhere (2).” Equally unpromising to Yancey is antiracism, which he believes “creates more racial hostility and polarizes us more than it brings us together. (2).” The book is refreshingly clear and his inclusion of personal insights and stories is helpful.
Yancey offers a hopeful tone throughout the book, endorsing a “novel approach (3),” a model he calls “mutual accountability (2).” According to Yancey, this approach differs from colorblindness and antiracism in that it “focus[es] on healthy interracial communications,” taking on a more humble approach to understanding what the answers may be to racial division (57-8). Mutual accountability requires “active listening” and “collaborative conversations” where “everyone is allowed to participate, and everyone’s ideas are taken seriously (14).” According to Yancey, “When individuals are convinced they already have the right answers, they feel justified using legal, political, and cultural power to enforce those answers. Such expressions of power make racial alienation worse (58).”
I appreciate that Yancey’s “how to” engage in mutual accountability reads much like a lesson in the basics of communication—lessons some of us have left behind because we may believe ourselves to be above the reasoning and argumentation of the opposing view holder. He reminds us that good things can happen when our “focus is not purely on winning the argument (15)” and when the other feels heard and appreciated and we “recognize the humanity of those who disagree with us (158).” However, this does not mean “ignor[ing] our own concerns (15),” but rather voicing them without being accusatory or belittling (44), looking for the possibility for “win-win solutions (158),” while maintaining a “commit[ment] to compromise when necessary (164).”
I also greatly appreciate Yancey’s attention to theology in chapter 6. Particularly his discussion of the biblical concept of “human depravity” which he notes is “a major difference between Christianity and secular ideologies” such as humanism (132-138). While humanists have great confidence in the “intellectual and moral capacities of humanity” and believe their potential to be “nearly limitless (133),” faithful Christians believe we are rather “fallen,” imperfect, and “need Christ because of our inability to overcome our innate depravity” (137 and referencing Romans 3:23, Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiastes 9:3, and 1 John 1:8-10).” Yancey argues this divide is perhaps “the most critical philosophical difference between Christianity and humanist approaches to reality and morality (137).” According to Yancey, Christians are “called to be obedient to the Bible” and “this calls us to place biblical truth above all other efforts to gain knowledge,” which puts them in contention with non-Christians and some progressive-leaning Christians (128-9). With a biblical understanding of the fallenness of man one can then humbly look to the perspectives of others on issues of race, with full realization of one’s imperfection and tendency to find solutions with personal advantages rather than fully considering the well-being of others. Also, he noted the connection between human depravity and confirmation bias. As a beautiful perk, he argues a solid theological understanding of human depravity is prone to forgiveness, writing “As forgiveness more naturally arises from a Christian framework than a humanist one, this ideal is another important Christian distinction that supports the use of collaborative conversations in dealing with racial alienation (145).”
Yancey notes faithful Christians believe they should be obedient the Bible and believe God provides answers beyond our intellect and level of wisdom (142) but Christians are not always able grasp God given truth rightly (again, human depravity). Thus, he argues it is best for us to engage in a mutual accountability model allowing for collaborative conversations and active listening.
I am glad to have read Yancey’s book, especially chapter 6, and would greatly look forward to future work that builds upon it, namely even more insights around depravity and collaborative conversations. To what degree do we find God’s will and way forward on racial issues through engaging in collaborative conversations with others? What role does obedience to the Bible play in these conversations? How do processes/outcomes differ when conversations are had with non-Christians? How do we guard against humanism as we look to others to help us come to a more generous and balanced perspective?
Even the best communicators can find helpful tips and reminders in Beyond Racial Division. One does not need to agree with all of Yancey’s perspectives on race (I do not) to appreciate his helpful propositions and critiques of alternative perspectives on race and to find great value in his advice to remember human depravity and the importance of humility when looking for solutions.
Yancey offers a hopeful tone throughout the book, endorsing a “novel approach (3),” a model he calls “mutual accountability (2).” According to Yancey, this approach differs from colorblindness and antiracism in that it “focus[es] on healthy interracial communications,” taking on a more humble approach to understanding what the answers may be to racial division (57-8). Mutual accountability requires “active listening” and “collaborative conversations” where “everyone is allowed to participate, and everyone’s ideas are taken seriously (14).” According to Yancey, “When individuals are convinced they already have the right answers, they feel justified using legal, political, and cultural power to enforce those answers. Such expressions of power make racial alienation worse (58).”
I appreciate that Yancey’s “how to” engage in mutual accountability reads much like a lesson in the basics of communication—lessons some of us have left behind because we may believe ourselves to be above the reasoning and argumentation of the opposing view holder. He reminds us that good things can happen when our “focus is not purely on winning the argument (15)” and when the other feels heard and appreciated and we “recognize the humanity of those who disagree with us (158).” However, this does not mean “ignor[ing] our own concerns (15),” but rather voicing them without being accusatory or belittling (44), looking for the possibility for “win-win solutions (158),” while maintaining a “commit[ment] to compromise when necessary (164).”
I also greatly appreciate Yancey’s attention to theology in chapter 6. Particularly his discussion of the biblical concept of “human depravity” which he notes is “a major difference between Christianity and secular ideologies” such as humanism (132-138). While humanists have great confidence in the “intellectual and moral capacities of humanity” and believe their potential to be “nearly limitless (133),” faithful Christians believe we are rather “fallen,” imperfect, and “need Christ because of our inability to overcome our innate depravity” (137 and referencing Romans 3:23, Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiastes 9:3, and 1 John 1:8-10).” Yancey argues this divide is perhaps “the most critical philosophical difference between Christianity and humanist approaches to reality and morality (137).” According to Yancey, Christians are “called to be obedient to the Bible” and “this calls us to place biblical truth above all other efforts to gain knowledge,” which puts them in contention with non-Christians and some progressive-leaning Christians (128-9). With a biblical understanding of the fallenness of man one can then humbly look to the perspectives of others on issues of race, with full realization of one’s imperfection and tendency to find solutions with personal advantages rather than fully considering the well-being of others. Also, he noted the connection between human depravity and confirmation bias. As a beautiful perk, he argues a solid theological understanding of human depravity is prone to forgiveness, writing “As forgiveness more naturally arises from a Christian framework than a humanist one, this ideal is another important Christian distinction that supports the use of collaborative conversations in dealing with racial alienation (145).”
Yancey notes faithful Christians believe they should be obedient the Bible and believe God provides answers beyond our intellect and level of wisdom (142) but Christians are not always able grasp God given truth rightly (again, human depravity). Thus, he argues it is best for us to engage in a mutual accountability model allowing for collaborative conversations and active listening.
I am glad to have read Yancey’s book, especially chapter 6, and would greatly look forward to future work that builds upon it, namely even more insights around depravity and collaborative conversations. To what degree do we find God’s will and way forward on racial issues through engaging in collaborative conversations with others? What role does obedience to the Bible play in these conversations? How do processes/outcomes differ when conversations are had with non-Christians? How do we guard against humanism as we look to others to help us come to a more generous and balanced perspective?
Even the best communicators can find helpful tips and reminders in Beyond Racial Division. One does not need to agree with all of Yancey’s perspectives on race (I do not) to appreciate his helpful propositions and critiques of alternative perspectives on race and to find great value in his advice to remember human depravity and the importance of humility when looking for solutions.
August 23, 2024
A very clear and matter-of-fact book. A few key takeaways:
1) moral suasion (how do you change someone's mind or what they think, even if you're right?)
2) mutual conversation as necessary for effective outcomes
3) the beautiful theological argument that we should not think ourselves free of bias/irrationality because we live in a fallen world.
1) moral suasion (how do you change someone's mind or what they think, even if you're right?)
2) mutual conversation as necessary for effective outcomes
3) the beautiful theological argument that we should not think ourselves free of bias/irrationality because we live in a fallen world.
April 13, 2023
I found this to be a very helpful read with profound insights offering a path forward in addressing the racial problems which plague America. Yancey is a Christian sociologist so there's understandably more social theory than theological insights.
March 22, 2022
When I first began reading George Yancey's new book a few weeks ago, one of the most striking thoughts that came to me was how simple yet challenging his solution to racial division is. Often we make solutions overly complex, or we easily get lost in the weeds of specific policy debates, economic philosophy, statistical analysis, and legal theories. Those conversations have merit, but they're also an awful starting place. Yancey starts where we, as a society, need to start. Yancey begins by suggesting that we listen to one another, and he suggests that we cannot heal division by more division. It's at the same time an obvious but also a necessary starting place.
In Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative To Colorblindness and Antiracism, Baylor University sociologist George Yancey attempts to provide, as the title suggests, an alternative to both the colorblind and the antiracism approach to racial division. Although both the colorblind and the antiracism view offers some good ideas, Yancey argues that both fail in various ways to provide a unifying approach. He charitably gives credit where credit is due but is also unafraid to challenge various harmful and divisive ideas connected to both views. He encourages active listening, cooperation, and rejects exclusively considering only some select voices.
In many ways, this models for us not only a faithful way of addressing racial division but division in general.
I commend Yancey for his stand in favor of honest, careful, and humble dialogue. However, while I can name dozens of popular "colorblind" evangelical teachers who, by their rhetoric or explicit admission, express no desire whatsoever for this kind of good-faith conversation, I have difficulty thinking of evangelical antiracists who wouldn't gladly welcome more collaboration and conversations. I may disagree with many of their policy positions and conclusions, but I don't foresee them disagreeing with the need for conversion. While many on the "colorblind" side openly mock the idea of having a conversation and instead see the other side as only deserving harsh rebuke. While I tend to agree with most of what Yancey is saying, and while I also have my own criticisms of antiracism, only the "colorblind" right-wing has ever attempted to silence me on this issue.
But, as I said, I have my own perspective as someone firmly in the evangelical world. My own experiences on this topic are primarily limited to dealing with other Christians. Outside that world, I certainly see more extremism on all sides.
Though some have criticized this book as overly hopeful, I appreciate the hopeful tone Yancey takes. I think it's needed and healthy. I'm afraid a lack of hope regarding racial division does great harm and can sometimes add to division. If there's no hope, after all, why even try? Why not further isolate into ethnic-centric tribalism? We must have hope, and a lack of hope informs how we respond to division. Though I'm sure this hopefulness can feel unwarranted or "wishful thinking," we would do well to remember what we know will come. We don't know how or when, but unity will come. Just as we share the Gospel without assurances that the nations will be discipled in our lifetime, we should likewise have a hopeful joy in striving for racial unity in Christ
“After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands.” – Revelation 7:9
Yancey's book, while sometimes seeming overly simplistic, is a needed reminder of the basics. Until we get these basics down and start practicing the elementary things, there's not much hope of having hard conversations about more complex policies and solutions. But I do have hope. Yancey's alternative should be the standard as we move forward with hope firmly planted in Christ.
In Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative To Colorblindness and Antiracism, Baylor University sociologist George Yancey attempts to provide, as the title suggests, an alternative to both the colorblind and the antiracism approach to racial division. Although both the colorblind and the antiracism view offers some good ideas, Yancey argues that both fail in various ways to provide a unifying approach. He charitably gives credit where credit is due but is also unafraid to challenge various harmful and divisive ideas connected to both views. He encourages active listening, cooperation, and rejects exclusively considering only some select voices.
In many ways, this models for us not only a faithful way of addressing racial division but division in general.
I commend Yancey for his stand in favor of honest, careful, and humble dialogue. However, while I can name dozens of popular "colorblind" evangelical teachers who, by their rhetoric or explicit admission, express no desire whatsoever for this kind of good-faith conversation, I have difficulty thinking of evangelical antiracists who wouldn't gladly welcome more collaboration and conversations. I may disagree with many of their policy positions and conclusions, but I don't foresee them disagreeing with the need for conversion. While many on the "colorblind" side openly mock the idea of having a conversation and instead see the other side as only deserving harsh rebuke. While I tend to agree with most of what Yancey is saying, and while I also have my own criticisms of antiracism, only the "colorblind" right-wing has ever attempted to silence me on this issue.
But, as I said, I have my own perspective as someone firmly in the evangelical world. My own experiences on this topic are primarily limited to dealing with other Christians. Outside that world, I certainly see more extremism on all sides.
Though some have criticized this book as overly hopeful, I appreciate the hopeful tone Yancey takes. I think it's needed and healthy. I'm afraid a lack of hope regarding racial division does great harm and can sometimes add to division. If there's no hope, after all, why even try? Why not further isolate into ethnic-centric tribalism? We must have hope, and a lack of hope informs how we respond to division. Though I'm sure this hopefulness can feel unwarranted or "wishful thinking," we would do well to remember what we know will come. We don't know how or when, but unity will come. Just as we share the Gospel without assurances that the nations will be discipled in our lifetime, we should likewise have a hopeful joy in striving for racial unity in Christ
“After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands.” – Revelation 7:9
Yancey's book, while sometimes seeming overly simplistic, is a needed reminder of the basics. Until we get these basics down and start practicing the elementary things, there's not much hope of having hard conversations about more complex policies and solutions. But I do have hope. Yancey's alternative should be the standard as we move forward with hope firmly planted in Christ.
June 8, 2023
Sociologist George Yancey wrote about racial issues in 2006 in "Beyond Racial Gridlock." Not receiving much attention from the book, Yancey turned his attention to other issues and thought that perhaps his own passion for healing racial division wouldn't bear much fruit. In 2020, a confluence of events sent the issue of race to the forefront of the American mind. Disappointed with the polarized responses of colorblindness and antiracism and the "cycle of dysfunctional racial relationships," George Yancey wrote "Beyond Racial Division" to attempt to map a third way.
Yancey is a black Christian. While not necessarily a Christian book, it has been influenced by his faith. Yancey believes that those (typically conservatives) who adopt a colorblind approach ignore the realities of what it is to live as an ethnic minority. Colorblindness ignores the history of injustice and the present realities of abuses in structures that maintain discrimination. On the other hand, Yancey is concerned that antiracism is overly combative and also doesn't listen to the individuals at the table. The tables are merely flipped and those who historically did not have power now wield it and use it to shame their opponents.
Yancey encourages us to consider the path of mutual accountability. He believes that this model, where collaborative conversations with empathy and mutuality is the only way forward. Yancey explains that, "This model stipulates that we work to have healthy interracial communications so that we can solve racial problems. In those communications we strive to listen to those in other racial groups and attempt to account for their interests. In this way we fashion solutions to racialized problems that address the needs of individuals across racial groups instead of promoting solutions that are accepted only by certain racial groups. By allowing those we disagree with to hold us “accountable” to their interests, we are forced to confront the ways we have fashioned solutions that conform to our own interests and desires."
Yancey urges us to develop the skill of active listening. Those who come to the table with a desire to bridge the divisions must:
"1. Define the racial problem.
2. Identify what we have in common.
3. Recognize our cultural or racial differences.
4. Create solutions that answer the concerns of the racial outgroup.
5. Find a compromise solution that works best for all."
Yancey follows through on his promise to not capitulate to either side of the divide and will surely annoy those from both sides. there will be issues that the reader (myself included) will disagree with. But Yancey's approach is helpful and hopeful.
The first weakness of the book is that it is a little less practical than I would have hoped (a boots-on-the-ground sequel would be great). The second weakness is that while I appreciate Yancey's desire to write a book for everyone, I think the book would have been more impactful if it were written from a more explicitly Christian position. There is a lot more that Yancey could have said on this front and I think it also would have helped deal with the first problem as well. When rooted in a shared belief in Christ, I think much more progress can be made.
Yancey's "Beyond Racial Division" is a wise and timely book. I commend it to you.
For more reviews see thebeehive.live.
Yancey is a black Christian. While not necessarily a Christian book, it has been influenced by his faith. Yancey believes that those (typically conservatives) who adopt a colorblind approach ignore the realities of what it is to live as an ethnic minority. Colorblindness ignores the history of injustice and the present realities of abuses in structures that maintain discrimination. On the other hand, Yancey is concerned that antiracism is overly combative and also doesn't listen to the individuals at the table. The tables are merely flipped and those who historically did not have power now wield it and use it to shame their opponents.
Yancey encourages us to consider the path of mutual accountability. He believes that this model, where collaborative conversations with empathy and mutuality is the only way forward. Yancey explains that, "This model stipulates that we work to have healthy interracial communications so that we can solve racial problems. In those communications we strive to listen to those in other racial groups and attempt to account for their interests. In this way we fashion solutions to racialized problems that address the needs of individuals across racial groups instead of promoting solutions that are accepted only by certain racial groups. By allowing those we disagree with to hold us “accountable” to their interests, we are forced to confront the ways we have fashioned solutions that conform to our own interests and desires."
Yancey urges us to develop the skill of active listening. Those who come to the table with a desire to bridge the divisions must:
"1. Define the racial problem.
2. Identify what we have in common.
3. Recognize our cultural or racial differences.
4. Create solutions that answer the concerns of the racial outgroup.
5. Find a compromise solution that works best for all."
Yancey follows through on his promise to not capitulate to either side of the divide and will surely annoy those from both sides. there will be issues that the reader (myself included) will disagree with. But Yancey's approach is helpful and hopeful.
The first weakness of the book is that it is a little less practical than I would have hoped (a boots-on-the-ground sequel would be great). The second weakness is that while I appreciate Yancey's desire to write a book for everyone, I think the book would have been more impactful if it were written from a more explicitly Christian position. There is a lot more that Yancey could have said on this front and I think it also would have helped deal with the first problem as well. When rooted in a shared belief in Christ, I think much more progress can be made.
Yancey's "Beyond Racial Division" is a wise and timely book. I commend it to you.
For more reviews see thebeehive.live.
April 8, 2022
Baylor sociologist George Yancey's "Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism" is a fresh, insightful, and highly accessible book that seeks to help people navigate the minefield U.S. race relations.
THE PROBLEM
The frailty of U.S. race relations (especially among Black people and White people) is most vividly displayed in the wake of high-profile racial incidents. We predictably engage protests and counter-protests, with many left on emotional simmer until the next incident hits. And then process starts all over again.
Yancey captures the current unhealthy conversation on race by focusing on two opposing camps: the colorblind camp and the anti-racist camp. According to Yancey, the colorblind tend to relegate racism either to the past or to overt racism, and can ignore racism's lingering systemic impact. Conversely, anti-racists tend to demonize White people, racialize everything, and exploit racism to pursue larger goals of undermining and replacing existing systems.
Yancey sees both colorblindness and anti-racism as dead-ends when it comes to bridging the U.S. racial divide.
A BETTER WAY
Yancey's remedy to the colorblind vs. anti-racist polarization is the Mutual Accountability model (hereafter, MA). The MA model is rooted in active listening and relationship building (vs. merely shouting at one another), persuasion (vs. domination through shaming and/or policy-making), and promoting the interests of disparate groups (vs. only the interests of MY group). With the ground rules of MA established, people can work together to define racial problems; identify differences and commonalities between racial groups; create targeted solutions for minority groups; and find broader solutions for everyone through compromise.
PROS
Yancey makes a persuasive case for the Mutual Accountability model. He writes with humility and clarity, and he unpacks his ideas carefully. Moreover, Yancey's sociological research, personal anecdotes, and real-life examples of people negotiating racial tensions lend much credibility to the MA model. This book moves the reader to cultivate the inter-personal skills and personal virtues (especially the virtue of humility) needed to relate well around race. Yancey is honest about how counter-intuitive the MA can be in our racially polarized times. However, he also helps the reader to understand how doable and vital MA is.
CONS
Really, there is not much to quibble over.
MY TAKEAWAYS
I find "Beyond Racial Division" and the Mutual Accountability model both refreshing and personally challenging. I have had my share of high-tension debates about race. While I have my convictions, I can easily pinpoint instances where I could have listened actively rather than just waiting for my turn to talk (read: win). Also, this book made me think through ways to collaborate with others on solid outcomes that would be mutually beneficial. Going into discussions and relationships with this mindset has the potential to result in real-world solutions that neither side initially thought possible.
"Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism" is well worth your time and effort. I look forward to putting it's principles into practice myself.
THE PROBLEM
The frailty of U.S. race relations (especially among Black people and White people) is most vividly displayed in the wake of high-profile racial incidents. We predictably engage protests and counter-protests, with many left on emotional simmer until the next incident hits. And then process starts all over again.
Yancey captures the current unhealthy conversation on race by focusing on two opposing camps: the colorblind camp and the anti-racist camp. According to Yancey, the colorblind tend to relegate racism either to the past or to overt racism, and can ignore racism's lingering systemic impact. Conversely, anti-racists tend to demonize White people, racialize everything, and exploit racism to pursue larger goals of undermining and replacing existing systems.
Yancey sees both colorblindness and anti-racism as dead-ends when it comes to bridging the U.S. racial divide.
A BETTER WAY
Yancey's remedy to the colorblind vs. anti-racist polarization is the Mutual Accountability model (hereafter, MA). The MA model is rooted in active listening and relationship building (vs. merely shouting at one another), persuasion (vs. domination through shaming and/or policy-making), and promoting the interests of disparate groups (vs. only the interests of MY group). With the ground rules of MA established, people can work together to define racial problems; identify differences and commonalities between racial groups; create targeted solutions for minority groups; and find broader solutions for everyone through compromise.
PROS
Yancey makes a persuasive case for the Mutual Accountability model. He writes with humility and clarity, and he unpacks his ideas carefully. Moreover, Yancey's sociological research, personal anecdotes, and real-life examples of people negotiating racial tensions lend much credibility to the MA model. This book moves the reader to cultivate the inter-personal skills and personal virtues (especially the virtue of humility) needed to relate well around race. Yancey is honest about how counter-intuitive the MA can be in our racially polarized times. However, he also helps the reader to understand how doable and vital MA is.
CONS
Really, there is not much to quibble over.
MY TAKEAWAYS
I find "Beyond Racial Division" and the Mutual Accountability model both refreshing and personally challenging. I have had my share of high-tension debates about race. While I have my convictions, I can easily pinpoint instances where I could have listened actively rather than just waiting for my turn to talk (read: win). Also, this book made me think through ways to collaborate with others on solid outcomes that would be mutually beneficial. Going into discussions and relationships with this mindset has the potential to result in real-world solutions that neither side initially thought possible.
"Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism" is well worth your time and effort. I look forward to putting it's principles into practice myself.
March 23, 2022
The premise of this book is that America is divided between two different visions of racial justice: colorblindness vs. antiracism. According to Yancey, the problem is that both of these existing models have fatal flaws: colorblind advocates start from the assumption that America is a society of equal racial opportunity, which simply isn't accurate. Antiracism as it currently exists in the US, meanwhile, is excessively confrontational and accusatory (e.g. "all whites are racist") and also too dismissive of white voices. Yancey argues--persuasively, I think--that neither of these models is truly working: antiracists have won some important political battles, but their wins have then stimulated fierce pushback from the other side, which fights to undo whatever antiracists have accomplished. (The obvious current example of this dynamic is the school board fights that have recently been taking place across the nation over critical race theory.)
What America needs, Yancey argues, is a new approach of mutual accountability, also called collaborative conversation. This model asks colorblind advocates and antiracists to actively listen to each other and take seriously each others concerns, which Yancey thinks are often very legitimate.
Yancey's argument for why Americans should adopt his model is part practical (again, the existing models aren't working) and part theological: he argues that ALL Americans, whether black or white, are subject to human depravity. We all see the world from our narrow, self-interested perspective and are likely to favor social arrangements that favor us or our group even if those arrangements aren't necessarily best for others. To combat our own corruption and ensure a society that is truly just for all, we must make ourselves accountable to other racial groups with interests completely different from our own.
This argument is compelling, in my mind, and this model is one I will implement in my own life. That said, I see two major weaknesses of this book:
Yancey is speaking mostly to individuals, whom he wants to engage in mutual accountability on an individual level in their personal lives. However, he also hints at institutional implementation of his model in church organizations, private corporations, educational settings, etc. Unfortunately, Yancey gestures at institutional implementation without actually explaining how it should occur, which means the book is less applicable than it could be.
My other objection to the book is that Yancey discourages activism, at least take-to-the-street-in-protest sort of activism. He is down on protest because protest involves pushing for a particular set of solutions to a given problem, whereas mutual accountability means rejecting pre-ordained solutions and instead allowing solutions to arise through collaborative conversation. I object to this on the grounds that the only reason why we can even talk about mutual accountability is because of the work activists have done, especially in the form of the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020. Before that, racial justice just wasn't breaking into the national consciousness sufficiently for people to even take the idea of mutual accountability seriously. In my view, then, activism is very necessary--but it is possible to engage in activism and mutual accountability simultaneously. This, in fact, is exactly what I'd love to see more Americans doing.
What America needs, Yancey argues, is a new approach of mutual accountability, also called collaborative conversation. This model asks colorblind advocates and antiracists to actively listen to each other and take seriously each others concerns, which Yancey thinks are often very legitimate.
Yancey's argument for why Americans should adopt his model is part practical (again, the existing models aren't working) and part theological: he argues that ALL Americans, whether black or white, are subject to human depravity. We all see the world from our narrow, self-interested perspective and are likely to favor social arrangements that favor us or our group even if those arrangements aren't necessarily best for others. To combat our own corruption and ensure a society that is truly just for all, we must make ourselves accountable to other racial groups with interests completely different from our own.
This argument is compelling, in my mind, and this model is one I will implement in my own life. That said, I see two major weaknesses of this book:
Yancey is speaking mostly to individuals, whom he wants to engage in mutual accountability on an individual level in their personal lives. However, he also hints at institutional implementation of his model in church organizations, private corporations, educational settings, etc. Unfortunately, Yancey gestures at institutional implementation without actually explaining how it should occur, which means the book is less applicable than it could be.
My other objection to the book is that Yancey discourages activism, at least take-to-the-street-in-protest sort of activism. He is down on protest because protest involves pushing for a particular set of solutions to a given problem, whereas mutual accountability means rejecting pre-ordained solutions and instead allowing solutions to arise through collaborative conversation. I object to this on the grounds that the only reason why we can even talk about mutual accountability is because of the work activists have done, especially in the form of the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020. Before that, racial justice just wasn't breaking into the national consciousness sufficiently for people to even take the idea of mutual accountability seriously. In my view, then, activism is very necessary--but it is possible to engage in activism and mutual accountability simultaneously. This, in fact, is exactly what I'd love to see more Americans doing.
March 16, 2022
Despite some good motivations, the two reigning approaches to race relations are failing. Colorblindness (the view closest to my own starting point) has failed to recognize and adequately address realities we don't all personally experience - such as the importance of race to many people of color, or the ongoing effects of past evils and current biases. Antiracism, which tends to see racism everywhere, is increasing the divide by demonizing anyone who fails to uncritically accept and actively practice its tenets. In both camps it seems there is no room for nuance or correction, let alone workable solutions. Meanwhile, real people are suffering and we are no closer to healing.
Hearing details about this new book project by Dr. Yancey, I became hopeful he would address the impasse with a better option. He has done exactly this. [Full disclosure: I was privileged to read a pre-release copy of the book in return for an honest review.]
Yancey's suggested path forward isn't a dogmatic ideology designed to replace Colorblindness or Antiracism with another "my-way-or-the-highway" echo chamber. Rather, it is an open ended call for genuine understanding and actual dialog as a lifestyle. It is a commitment to mutual responsibility in addressing the racial divide, recognizing our need for solutions instead of virtue signaling, denial, demonization, and the like.
Yancey offers both Biblical and scientific arguments in favor of his approach. You don't need to be a Christian to see the wisdom in his recommendations (he provides plenty of additional evidence for that), but his chapter focused on Biblical support is one of my favorites and worth your while regardless of your beliefs.
Not an easy or quick fix. We will need a great deal of patience and wisdom, and it will require us to have potentially uncomfortable conversations with ourselves and others. Are we willing to reexamine and adjust our views when necessary? Will we truly listen with understanding (Proverbs 18:13 style)? Are we willing to build relationships across racial and political lines? Will we give others the benefit of the doubt we expect them to give us? These and many more questions will require sober consideration and personal sacrifice if we desire to make real progress.
But if you are here reading this review, it's probably safe to assume you are genuinely concerned with the racial divide and willing to make an effort. On that basis, I cannot recommend Dr. Yancey's book and approach highly enough.
Hearing details about this new book project by Dr. Yancey, I became hopeful he would address the impasse with a better option. He has done exactly this. [Full disclosure: I was privileged to read a pre-release copy of the book in return for an honest review.]
Yancey's suggested path forward isn't a dogmatic ideology designed to replace Colorblindness or Antiracism with another "my-way-or-the-highway" echo chamber. Rather, it is an open ended call for genuine understanding and actual dialog as a lifestyle. It is a commitment to mutual responsibility in addressing the racial divide, recognizing our need for solutions instead of virtue signaling, denial, demonization, and the like.
Yancey offers both Biblical and scientific arguments in favor of his approach. You don't need to be a Christian to see the wisdom in his recommendations (he provides plenty of additional evidence for that), but his chapter focused on Biblical support is one of my favorites and worth your while regardless of your beliefs.
Not an easy or quick fix. We will need a great deal of patience and wisdom, and it will require us to have potentially uncomfortable conversations with ourselves and others. Are we willing to reexamine and adjust our views when necessary? Will we truly listen with understanding (Proverbs 18:13 style)? Are we willing to build relationships across racial and political lines? Will we give others the benefit of the doubt we expect them to give us? These and many more questions will require sober consideration and personal sacrifice if we desire to make real progress.
But if you are here reading this review, it's probably safe to assume you are genuinely concerned with the racial divide and willing to make an effort. On that basis, I cannot recommend Dr. Yancey's book and approach highly enough.
Read
January 24, 2026January 2026, Papua New Guinea.
This is a hard one for me. I consider myself both fairly open and fairly educated about race topics, for a white guy from the suburbs. I agree that there are major problems with antiracism and colorblindness. I do think there are racial problems in the United States and I think stripping power from white people and giving it to racial minorities is both unrealistic and problematic.
I'm basically me Yancey's target audience. So why did I feel like I got so little out of this book? Any of the citations are Yamcey citing his own work, so in some ways this is the culmination of his ongoing research and thoughts on this topic. I just wish he'd organized those thoughts a little better.
I would not consider this book well written, it's repetitive and doesn't builda competent and cohesive thesis. Mr. Yancey's argument could have benefitted from a more in-depth deconstruction of the worldviews he's competing against.
And the alternative he supplies feels rather underwhelming. He practically discourages political active protest and I'm sure he opposes more extreme methods of dismantling the status quo. So I'm conclusion we're supposed to... What exactly? Be better listeners and try to work together. I guess, I mean, isn't that basically just colorblindness?
I do think collaboration and learning to listen to one another are essential skills for us to have for building a better society. But is that really all there is? Is that enough to heal centuries of hurt and division.
There's a reason why so many activists turn to socialism, race is only one aspect of power dynamics and it's hardly a stand alone issue. Mr. Yancey mentions intersectionality but doesn't address it at all.
This is a hard one for me. I consider myself both fairly open and fairly educated about race topics, for a white guy from the suburbs. I agree that there are major problems with antiracism and colorblindness. I do think there are racial problems in the United States and I think stripping power from white people and giving it to racial minorities is both unrealistic and problematic.
I'm basically me Yancey's target audience. So why did I feel like I got so little out of this book? Any of the citations are Yamcey citing his own work, so in some ways this is the culmination of his ongoing research and thoughts on this topic. I just wish he'd organized those thoughts a little better.
I would not consider this book well written, it's repetitive and doesn't builda competent and cohesive thesis. Mr. Yancey's argument could have benefitted from a more in-depth deconstruction of the worldviews he's competing against.
And the alternative he supplies feels rather underwhelming. He practically discourages political active protest and I'm sure he opposes more extreme methods of dismantling the status quo. So I'm conclusion we're supposed to... What exactly? Be better listeners and try to work together. I guess, I mean, isn't that basically just colorblindness?
I do think collaboration and learning to listen to one another are essential skills for us to have for building a better society. But is that really all there is? Is that enough to heal centuries of hurt and division.
There's a reason why so many activists turn to socialism, race is only one aspect of power dynamics and it's hardly a stand alone issue. Mr. Yancey mentions intersectionality but doesn't address it at all.
August 25, 2022
George Yancey provides us with a way to combat racial alienation through collaborative conversations and mutual accountability. He critiques the prevailing lines of thinking that have contributed to the polarization and divisions within the US: colorblindedness (assumes that there is no race) and antiracism (an ideology that imposes its beliefs and methods on proponents and antagonists alike). Given how popular the antiracism movement is nowadays, Yancey should be commended for being willing to apply a sociological critique to it.
He makes a compelling argument for using mutual accountability and collaborative conversations to work with ALL parties to tackle the problem of racism. Volitional compliance and active listening are two core skills that he says more people and organizations need to use in everyday interracial interactions.
The read is a good one and you would be hard pressed to disagree with his main argument. He frequently mentions the need for more empirical research, but offers mostly qualitative analysis and some anecdotes. If he had included some more hard data, it would make his argument so much more compelling.
Nevertheless, this is an important read for the times we live in.
He makes a compelling argument for using mutual accountability and collaborative conversations to work with ALL parties to tackle the problem of racism. Volitional compliance and active listening are two core skills that he says more people and organizations need to use in everyday interracial interactions.
The read is a good one and you would be hard pressed to disagree with his main argument. He frequently mentions the need for more empirical research, but offers mostly qualitative analysis and some anecdotes. If he had included some more hard data, it would make his argument so much more compelling.
Nevertheless, this is an important read for the times we live in.
March 17, 2022
Over the last decade, there has been a continual buzz about issues of race. One side just wishes we'd just get over it (colorblindness). The other side it seems is focused on placing blame (anti-racism). Lost in the shuffle is finding a true pathway to bringing healing to the racial divide.
That is where George Yancey's follow-up to Beyond Racial Gridlock (2006) is a real blessing. Yancey puts both colorblindness and anti-racism through the stringent critique of sociology, and finds that neither moves us closer to addressing the problems of a racialized society. Beyond Racial Division emphasizes a sociologically argued plan. Emphasized is the importance of things like active listening, a willingness to reassess one’s beliefs and hear challenges to their beliefs, ability to ask good questions, compromise, healthy conflict, etc. to have collaborative conversations about race. This strategy provides a clear pathway for not just identifying race problems, but moving us toward overcoming the division.
If you've been reading in the area of race for some time, as I have, you need to add this choice to the top of your list. If you're just beginning your study in this minefield, you can't find a better launching point
That is where George Yancey's follow-up to Beyond Racial Gridlock (2006) is a real blessing. Yancey puts both colorblindness and anti-racism through the stringent critique of sociology, and finds that neither moves us closer to addressing the problems of a racialized society. Beyond Racial Division emphasizes a sociologically argued plan. Emphasized is the importance of things like active listening, a willingness to reassess one’s beliefs and hear challenges to their beliefs, ability to ask good questions, compromise, healthy conflict, etc. to have collaborative conversations about race. This strategy provides a clear pathway for not just identifying race problems, but moving us toward overcoming the division.
If you've been reading in the area of race for some time, as I have, you need to add this choice to the top of your list. If you're just beginning your study in this minefield, you can't find a better launching point
June 21, 2022
4.5 stars rounded up. This book was fantastic! It helped me sort through quite a bit of what has left me feeling fed up with how media coverage and discourse, or lack thereof, is done in this country. It also helped me understand concepts like historical racism and systemic racism in ways that felt understandable and made sense.
The reason this is 4.5 stars though is that the book is fairly repetitive and doesn't always go into as detailed a break down of techniques or examples of what the discussions used as examples looked like. Some of it is probably similar to ideas used in my leadership and marketing classes, but I'm guessing.
Very helpful book as far as breaking down competing ideologies and approaches to dealing with racism in America and presenting the case for why a different approach may be better. I just think that the repetition needed to be cut out and more detailed explanations and examples needed to be given to fully flesh out the mutual accountability approach. Whether it be dialogues written as role playing the discussions or simply going into more detail would have helped me have a clearer picture of this third model.
The reason this is 4.5 stars though is that the book is fairly repetitive and doesn't always go into as detailed a break down of techniques or examples of what the discussions used as examples looked like. Some of it is probably similar to ideas used in my leadership and marketing classes, but I'm guessing.
Very helpful book as far as breaking down competing ideologies and approaches to dealing with racism in America and presenting the case for why a different approach may be better. I just think that the repetition needed to be cut out and more detailed explanations and examples needed to be given to fully flesh out the mutual accountability approach. Whether it be dialogues written as role playing the discussions or simply going into more detail would have helped me have a clearer picture of this third model.
November 9, 2022
The basic premise of this book is that the "colorblind" view that says our racial problems are largely solved is clearly wrong, but the "antiracist" view, for all of its moral appeal, is not working, and will never be successful at getting us anywhere we want to be. So, a third option is needed.
He calls the third way "mutual accountability," which I think is a terrible name because it gives the impression he wants oppressed people to meet the white supremacist half-way, and that is definitely NOT what he is saying. He is advocating for an open conversation where people from all sides work together to find ways to actually solve problems (as opposed to just scoring points).
I have a pretty easy time getting on board with this mindset, but it seems that a mindset is all it really is so far. I'm having a tough time envisioning how one would actually enact this process, and the book doesn't provide much clarity on that. It's a place to start, for sure, but I need more guidance on where to go from there.
He calls the third way "mutual accountability," which I think is a terrible name because it gives the impression he wants oppressed people to meet the white supremacist half-way, and that is definitely NOT what he is saying. He is advocating for an open conversation where people from all sides work together to find ways to actually solve problems (as opposed to just scoring points).
I have a pretty easy time getting on board with this mindset, but it seems that a mindset is all it really is so far. I'm having a tough time envisioning how one would actually enact this process, and the book doesn't provide much clarity on that. It's a place to start, for sure, but I need more guidance on where to go from there.
March 6, 2022
Dr. Yancey’s follows-up his previous and excellent work, Beyond Racial Gridlock, with a book that begins to outline his distinctive vision for the mutual accountability model. This book serves as an invitation to join him in this endeavor. In his opening chapters, he discusses the failings of antiracism while also challenging his audience to note forms of institutional discrimination. Yancey provides a theological and sociological basis for mutual accountability. Yancey’s steps of the mutual accountability model are (1) define the racial problem, (2) find things in common, (3) recognize cultural or racial differences, (4) create solutions addressing the concerns of the racial outgroup, and (5) find compromise solution that works best for everyone. As an invitation to join him, Yancey’s book paints a broad, yet incomplete outline because he wishes his audience to enter the conversation and help this mutual accountability movement take place.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews