Claudia Patricia Berbeo Asesora Social Media

In light of the difficulty in showing how racial inequality and racism persists, I use several empirical and theoretical arguments throughout this study to explain my results. However, I do use two specific theoretical arguments that work well to frame many of my findings and discussions in this study. I first draw on Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's racialized social systems approach to explain racism in the post-Civil Rights era. Like Omi and Winant (1994), Bonilla- Silva recognizes that racism and the racial hierarchy created before the 1960s has not completely disappeared from the American stratification system. His approach suggests that the persistence of racial inequality is due to the continued presence of a covert or "color-blind" form of racism that resides in the existing economic, political, social, and ideological structures of American society (Bonilla-Silva 2001:37). These structures, and the individuals that participate in them, work, whether overtly or covertly, to place individuals into racial categories and to maintain the racial hierarchy in which the dominant race gains more social, economic, political, and even psychological advantages over other groups. Bonilla-Silva (2001:42) identifies this as the

"racialization process" in which every groups’ behaviors, actions, and societal roles are classified based on an "us" versus "them" spectrum in which groups are included or excluded from

privileges based on their racial classification. Overall, this racialization process or "racial practices" limit a group's life chances based on their skin color. It is also systematic and

ingrained in every part of the social system; thus, American society is organized around racial classifications.

Bonilla-Silva (2001:43) suggests that one of the major mechanisms that perpetuate the racial hierarchy in the U.S. is racism or "racial ideology." He defines a racial ideology as "the racially based framework used by actors to explain and justify (dominant group) or challenge (subordinate race or races) the racial status quo" (Bonilla-Silva 2001:63). In other words, a racial ideology provides clarification of one’s racial classification, a sense of their social position in the racial hierarchy, and provides mechanisms to explain racial inequality. It also explains how racial and ethnic groups should relate and clearly define who represents the in-group versus the out-group. Bonilla-Silva also argues that while every group has the ability to create these racialized frameworks, it is the dominant group’s racial ideology that shapes all other

frameworks. In addition, the dominant racial ideology's explanations of race relations and other racial and ethnic groups can be as overt or covert as needed to make sure that the dominant group stays at the top of the racial hierarchy.

However, the more important point of Bonilla-Silva’s discussion of racial ideology is that today’s dominant racial belief (or racism) is “color-blind”; it does not overtly recognize minority groups as biologically and intellectually inferior. Rather, this new color-blind ideology suggests that race and ethnicity and, more generally, skin color, does not matter in shaping an individual or group’s life chances. However, using this color-blind ideology does not negate racial

inequality or racism. As Bonilla-Silva (2001:77) states “the dominant racial ideology helps normalize racial inequality by portraying the particular interests of the dominant race as

universal, and thus by claiming social and moral authority over all social actors.” For example, many Whites explain minority disparities based on cultural differences (such as they were not

taught how to save money), or on the seemingly more objective reasons such as the lack of education or skills for higher-paying jobs. Therefore, a color-blind ideology allows Whites and other groups to couch any racial and ethnic differences in a more “colorless” language that implies that the differences are due to individual shortcomings.

Bonilla-Silva (2001) proposes that even minorities support color-blind ideology because it suggests that all racial practices are based on less racist assumptions and seemingly more logical and liberal assumptions. For instance, some employers suggest that they do not hire Blacks for managerial positions because they do not have the appropriate education or skills. On the surface, this seems like a perfectly legitimate and rational explanation of hiring practices; however, it completely discounts the possibility that the employer could just not like Blacks. More importantly, having the “appropriate” education may only be something Whites are viewed as having; thus, creating a racial hierarchy based on supposedly meritorious decisions. In

addition, Whites rarely recognize past events of racial oppression, such as slavery, and suggest that since the Civil Rights Era, society has become more equal, with a level playing field. Color- blind ideology also allows groups to argue a strict liberal position in which everyone is equal and any type of program that aims to address racial inequality is not appropriate or is unnecessary. Overall, color-blind ideology allows the dominant group, Whites, to deny the possibilities of the existence of a racial hierarchy, further supporting the racial status quo.

Bonilla-Silva’s approach allows me, as a researcher, to look deeper into the meanings of what my respondents suggest about the opportunities and access each group has to the Atlanta construction industry. It also allows me to be wary of explanations of racial and ethnic

differences based on discussions of individual effort, hard work, or the lack of motivation (i.e., American achievement ideology). This approach gives me the tools to broaden my findings to

explain how color-blind ideology continues to support racism and a racial hierarchy, even though it is embedded in more colorless language. Finally, and most important, I will be able to uncover the more hidden racial practices and mechanisms that continue to privilege Whites over

minorities, despite the lack of overt racism among Whites.

The second theory I most often use is Blumer's (1958) prejudice theory. While Bonilla- Silva’s approach gives me a way to understand how ideologies can perpetuate privilege and racial hierarchy, it does not clearly define why individuals use racism, or why Whites can, all of sudden, become increasingly more outspoken and discriminatory toward other groups. For instance, why has the call for more government action against illegal immigration dramatically increased in the last two years in the U.S.? Blumer’s theory suggests that any escalation in prejudice and discrimination toward a certain group is because an individual's or racial/ethnic group's perceived social position or sense of entitlement is challenged. Blumer (1958:5) argues that prejudice is a build-up of a racial or ethnic group's feelings of anger and frustration due to continuous discrimination and competition over resources, which results in the development of a "sense of group position."

Blumer (1958) suggests that all ethnic/racial groups and individuals develop a racial identification through comparison and experience, which leads to the labeling of other racial groups as opposite or "other" to their position. This racial identification also provides a group some type of understanding of their place in the American hierarchy, or, as Blumer suggests, it explains to a group where they think they “ought to be” in relation to other groups or their most desired position. As can be seen in White America's historic identification of Blacks as

ideological opposites, outsiders, or the "other" (Roediger 1991), Whites consider their social position as better than Blacks. Developing this “sense of group position” involves four aspects:

(2) a feeling that the subordinate race is intrinsically different and alien, (3) a feeling of proprietary claim to certain areas of privilege and advantage,

(4) a fear and suspicion that the subordinate race harbors designs on the prerogatives of the dominant race (Blumer 1958:4).

These feelings culminate into a perceived social position, which sparks a group to become more prejudiced and discriminatory if this position is challenged. Bobo et al. (2000:491) states that Blumer believed this sense of group position permeated every social aspect of a person's life and "that the social relations of race will carry over into market relations of the economy." Thus, any type of threat or perception of competition to a racial or ethnic group’s social position leads to increased prejudice and discrimination.

In short, Blumer's theory suggests that prejudice and discrimination increase with competition. This theory helps to explain the ebbs and flows of race relations and racial

inequality. It also helps me to show how Whites and Blacks in Atlanta understand and perceive the inclusion of Latinos into a city that has long maintained a white-black dichotomy. It also points out how discrimination and racism can have different levels of severity and whether these levels are heightened in an economically competitive industry like construction where I find that the labor market is split into two competitive halves based on the price of the laborers or

subcontractors: cheap and hard-working immigrant workers versus expensive and lazy Latino, White, and Black Americans.