Why I’m Not Optimistic About Racelessness

Looking at race eliminativism through a biblical lens

Philosophy of Race/Christianity

WHY I’M NOT OPTIMISTIC ABOUT RACELESSNESS

Looking at race eliminativism through a biblical lens

Henry C. Flowers III

Dr. Sheena Mason, the creator of Theory of Racelessness believes racism is everywhere, but not in the traditional sense. 

According to Mason racism is not merely bad thoughts or actions towards people because of their race. Racial categories themselves are racist. To end racism we must put an end to these categories. Individuals must see themselves and others as raceless. Racism was born out of the idea of race.

How does the Theory of Racelessness work and how does it differ from antiracist methods? Should Christians adopt this method when approaching race?

Mason argues that all traditional methods of antiracism promote racism because these approaches hold that race is in some sense real. According to Mason, race isn’t real. Race is not a descriptor of either a biological or socially constructed reality. It is imaginary. Therefore, if we wish to end racism we must abolish “race” unilaterally and categorically through racial skepticism and eliminativism. Mason argues one cannot eliminate racism without eliminating race and vice versa. Hence the naming of her solution: “Theory of Racelessness.”

Writing in the Journal of Free Black Thought, Mason points out that most people believe “race exists independently of any racism or racist attitudes.” She argues that many believe one can acknowledge a person’s race without associating that person with a negative or positive view. Mason believes this is actually impossible:

…seeing our fellow humans in racial terms—seeing them as “raced”—actually creates “race.” That is, understanding human differences…in either benignly “racial” or malignantly “racist” ways creates and maintains “race.” Hence “race(ism)” and my other novel terms keep before our eyes the fact that racism creates race. Eliminating racism means eliminating race, and vice versa.

In Mason’s view there is a reciprocal relationship between race and racism. You cannot have one without the other. Mason goes on to explain that racial categories (black, white, brown) were created solely to associate people and a given status within a social hierarchy. Racial categories exist because of racism. 

According to Mason racism begins with the “belief that human beings are naturally born … into separate and distinct categories or ‘races’” along with the “assumption of a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority among the so-called races.” She writes:

Primarily influenced by longstanding and ever-fluid European caste systems, race in America once reflected a caste system that, at its most complex, included “white,” “black,” and “brown” indentured servants, who, for all intents and purposes, were enslaved, and enslaved indigenous and African people.

The Theory of Racelessness posits racism is a de facto American caste system. Racial categories were the labels used to associate a person’s rank within the caste. Mason says:

Enslavement was not racialized, in the ways many of us currently understand “race,” racism, and slavery, until approximately 1660…. Over time and within the bounds of the “peculiar institution of slavery,” racialization—the systematic practice of marking out people as subject to violence and oppression mainly based on ancestry and phenotype—emerged. 

Mason acknowledges how this caste system has outlasted its original purpose and relevance. Although it’s widely acknowledged that there is no biological difference between blacks and whites, the view that “white” amounts to power and “black” amounts to oppression still exists. She quotes a popular definition of racism from Instagram in support of this:

Racism is both a system of advantage (for whites) and a system of oppression (for BIPOC). The system was created to concentrate social and institutional power among those designated as “white,” and to exclude all others from receiving these benefits.

She goes on to comment: 

The hierarchies implied here and in the Instagram post—of “white” people over “BIPOC” people in terms of power, and of “BIPOC” people over “white” people in terms of inherent victimization—is built into the very idea of “race.” It is racism that created the idea of race in the first place and that continues to perpetuate it. 

Among popular approaches which claim to solve racism, Theory of Racelessness, is one of a very few that sees eliminating race altogether as the solution to racism. In Mason’s words:

The problem is not the victim’s alleged difference (i.e., their so-called race), and the solution is not the indiscriminate and absolute labeling of most happenings or people as evidence of “racism” or as “racist,” nor is the solution that practice now called “cancel culture,” which so often relies on invocations of “racism.” The solution is the type of antirace(ism) embodied in the Theory of Racelessness.

Folks have race fatigue. Yet we can’t stop talking about race. We assume there is meaning tied to our race. The thought of no longer talking about it sort of feels degrading, as though we would be abandoning an essential part of our respective identities. And yet little has improved as a result of these conversations. What are we to do?

The Theory of Racelessness couldn’t come at a better time for those who feel this tension. To them Mason’s is a voice of reason sounding from a sector in society where we’d least expect to find it: the academy. Mason’s credentials and insight give this approach a measure of credibility. And like it or not, so does her race. 

Mason’s optimistic outlook on human nature flatters us as a species and thus gives her work an appeal. She believes humans have the capacity and desire to change in order to reach an ideal goal. She believes mankind’s intentions are such that if given the right information we will no longer appeal to evil but to righteousness. In her mind humans are capable of good; it is only the institutions that hinder us. Ending racism is therefore well within our grasp.

Optimism is apparent in Mason’s argument that racism is an imposition of an evil bygone era and not necessarily a natural outworking of man’s inclination to hate others and love himself. Far from being a commentary on the depravity of a sinful humanity, racism is seen by Mason as a social anomaly that can be corrected with education. She explains away racism as a historical accident captured in our language. 

Terms like “liberation,” “abolish,” and for that matter “racial skepticism” and “eliminativism” are also suggestive of her optimistic view of human nature. Mason’s use of these terms reveals that she believes social problems can be solved through collective action. By solved I mean that the stated goal is reached and that there are no alternative outcomes or trade-offs to consider. Abolishing racism is the goal and the solution is to abolish race. In Mason’s opinion we are capable of doing both. 

It is this optimism that gives me pause. I am not that optimistic about human nature; my anthropology won’t allow it. Neither will my experience with other humans and knowledge of my own heart. I do not believe racism or any sin simply emerges from institutions or is imposed on a people. Such sins come from us. They are imposed by us. They are upheld, championed and buttressed by us. My position is not my own but one the Scriptures teach and that the Church has believed for ages. I do need to give Dr. Mason her flowers though. There are certainly things I like about the Theory of Racelessness.

First, it resonates with me. I agree that race has an outsized priority in American thinking. It’s one thing to make observations about the cultural trends of certain social or racial groups within a given society. It’s one thing to note that certain disparities exist between groups within a society. It’s another thing to say those disparities are the result of racism if the only proof you have is the mere existence of the disparity. I can look at the wage numbers, education stats and incarceration rates of a given group and note its disproportion relative to other groups without assuming the disproportion proves there is inequity built into the society. Put simply, not all disparities are due to racism!  

I get the sense that Mason feels the same way. I quote again from a passage I quoted just above:

The problem is not the victim’s alleged difference (i.e., their so-called race), and the solution is not the indiscriminate and absolute labeling of most happenings or people as evidence of “racism” or as “racist.”

This captures what I and many others believe. Not every problem is proof-positive of racism. 

Another thing I like about the Theory of Racelessness is its author, Dr. Mason herself. I do not know her and I have not met her but I get the feeling that she is a freethinker who has at times met people who’ve tried to place her in a box. 

Mason is no race-based victim and neither is anyone else in America. Because our society is fixated upon race we appeal to the intersectional hierarchy structure that is baked into race. Recall that in her comment on the Instagram definition of racism, she had said:

The hierarchies implied here and in the Instagram post—of “white” people over “BIPOC” people in terms of power, and of “BIPOC” people over “white” people in terms of inherent victimization—is built into the very idea of “race.”

So, because she has disembarked the “race-train,” she can reject its freight. Because she no longer (or never has) carried this baggage she’s free to think for herself and to see herself as a person with agency and the ability to live freely rather than as her race permits. As she writes at the close of the article:

Whether you insist on placing me on the raci(al/st) hierarchy or not, I choose to embrace my racelessness. And who are you to tell me who I am?

This, I believe, is noble and it is why I commend Mason for her work.

Overall, I like Mason’s take. I think one could do worse than apply the principles of racelessness to his or her own life. I wish many would. I’m a black man who has never really suffered from racial hang-ups. I like doing good business with good people regardless of their race. I’ve never concerned myself with appealing to expectations folks have of black men. By the grace of God I am who I am. But this “sense of self” has not always been easy to maintain. It’s refreshing to see a kind of antiracism that does not disparage one group over another nor privilege one group over another but lays before all of us a solution that is optimistic and mutually beneficial. 

But do I think racelessness is the solution? Do I believe racism is the problem? No to both. Here is where I believe Mason’s theory goes beyond its depth. The theory is plausible at best. Why plausible? Why not sound, good, or trustworthy? Because of its optimism. Mason thinks too highly of her fellow humans and two lowly about the problems we create. In her mind racism was an accident in time. An exception and not the rule. She asks, “Why are we racists?” Whereas I ask, “Why is anyone not racist?” This has to do with our differing visions of the world. To Mason, societal problems like racism stem from institutions. This is good news for us because this means we aren’t to blame for our problems, institutions are. When someone like Mason calls for change, she believes that fundamental change must happen with the ideas and language behind the institutions themselves.  As Thomas Sowell wrote in Intellectuals and Society (2010), many intellectuals see “the ills of society…as ultimately an intellectual and moral problem for which intellectuals are especially equipped to provide answers , by virtue of greater knowledge and insight” (p. 76).

Mason and I differ on our view of human nature. To her, humans have the capacity to fix our universal problems. Humans can explore an issue and then find the answer. Any human problem is due to our ignorance. There is no real shortcoming in us except that we have fallen for a faulty narrative or have been indoctrinated to think incorrectly. But once we have been enlightened, once we’ve been informed about the institutions which are broken, once we have woken up and taken the red pill, we can make everything great again by enacting fundamental change. 

That is not all. Not only does Mason believe we have the capacity to change, she believes we have the desire to change. For the Theory of Racelessness to take hold, humans must be inherently good, meaning we naturally want to act in a way that benefits others despite our own self-interest. It is only when institutions are corrupt that man becomes self-centered. Once the corruption is unveiled, we will all work together to reach the solution. In this case it is the abolition of race(ism). Listen to the optimism in her concluding paragraph:

…the sooner we stop imagining it in our language and discourse, the sooner it will vanish. In eliminating “race,” the Theory of Racelessness helps people recognize and imagine themselves outside of race(ism). It enables people to see themselves and others more clearly, without the distorting filter of “race.” In this way, the theory also helps people become more astute at recognizing and solving race(ism). Importantly, the theory’s core is bringing our shared humanity to the forefront in ways that the divisive presence or insertion of “race” ideology precludes. Together, we can do anything, including uphold race(ism). But we can also reconcile, heal, resolve, and eliminate the problem, too. 

Note what she says must change: “language,” “discourse,” “the filter.” Our imaginations must change. We must become more astute. We must change our self-perception. Look at what racelessness promises: eliminating racism, bringing forward our shared humanity, eliminating division. Again, Mason’s optimism is palpable. She believes our thinking and speech are the problems, not our attitudes and moral character. She believes that the means by which we change involve education and reimagining. This is an appeal to our intellect not our hearts. 

All of this sounds great if, and only if, her view of human nature is correct. Only if humans are naturally good, cooperative, competent, and diplomatic would the Theory of Racelessness have the intended effect of solving racism in America. Only if Dr. Mason herself is as virtuous as she claims we all are. Only if it is true that humanity is not the primary source of all our woes but rather the institutions could this prescription be the remedy for racism. 

Should Christians follow this line of thinking? Sure, see yourself as raceless or don’t. But do not think that by doing so you will end racism. You are just ending racial categories, nothing more. I know this because the Scriptures say humans are not born righteous. Nor do we have the capacity or desire to be righteous. We are born into the world possessing a sinful nature. Our bent is toward hating our neighbors, not loving them. As Paul says in Romans 3:12, “All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” Instead, my advice to believers would be to do as apostle John says in 1 John 4:1: 

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

“Test every spirit” according to God’s word and be wary of the “epistemology of optimism” we find so often in modern social theories. Be skeptics not of God but of so-called experts and their worldviews. Look to Scriptures for the solutions in life, for in them God “has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence” (2 Pet. 1:3). Indeed, only the Scriptures are “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).

How do we end racism? Believe the Gospel message. The Scriptures teach that it is the Gospel and not a worldly theory that reconciles one person of one race to another, replacing hostility with harmony (Eph. 2:11-15). It is the Gospel that has the power to unite all people into one cohesive community (1 Cor. 6:15; Eph. 5:30). 

So to believers, do not drink from “broken cisterns” (Jer. 2:13). Do not “spend money for that which is not bread,” nor “labor for that which does not satisfy” (Is. 55:2). Please guard against your modern impulse to forsake the wisdom of God for the novelty of untested rationalism, lest you run the risk of “deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6).

---

Henry C. Flowers III, MDiv, Reformed Theological Seminary, is a​ native of Southern Mississippi. Henry, his wife Krystin and their four young children were called to move to Tacoma, WA in 2020 where he now serves as the Associate Pastor of discipleship, education, and pastoral counseling at Evangelical Reformed Church.