Is Familyism Any Different Than Racism?

-- By JeffreySchatz - 15 Apr 2010

A pair of conversations

Interview with a white supremacist

I: What does it mean for you to be a racist?

WS: It means I think whites are better than blacks.

I: In what way?

WS: In every way. . . we’re smarter, kinder, more creative, you name it.

I: But do you really think that every white person is smarter and nicer than every black person?

WS: It’s true on average, but there are exceptions to every rule.

I: So you acknowledge that there are at least a few black people who are just as smart and nice as white people.

WS: Sure, there are always exceptions. There are also some dumb, no good white people. But, on average, whites are better in these ways.

I: So you don’t have a problem with these black people?

WS: Which black people?

I: The ones who you think are just as smart and nice as whites.

WS: Of course I still have a problem with them! They’re black.

I: But they’re just as good as whites in all the ways you mentioned: intelligence, creativity--

WS: But that doesn’t matter.

I: But just before you were saying that these were the reasons whites are better than blacks.

WS: No, there are other reasons too.

I: Like what?

WS: Whites are just better than blacks.

I: Better at what?

WS: Just better. Like God is better than the devil or good is better than evil. They’re just better.

Conversation between a parent and child about buying a bike for a neighbor

Child (C): But why not?

Parent (M): I’m not just going to go and buy her a bike.

C: But you bought me a bike.

P: Yes, because you’re my child.

C: So? She needs one too.

P: But you’re my child and she’s not. Parents don’t buy bikes for other peoples’ children.

C: But her parents can’t afford to. I told you this already.

P: It’s just not the same. She’s not part of our family.

C: So she’s worse because she’s not part of our family?

P: Not worse. There’s just a different relationship. When someone is part of your family you do things for them that you wouldn’t do for other people.

C: But I still don’t get why. She’s smarter than me, she runs faster. A lot of people even think she’s nicer.

P: None of that’s true.

C: If it was, and I could prove it, would you buy her a bike?

P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children.

Value Groups

The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the difference in values he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about race. The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group.

So is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Understanding the innate similarities between them provides perspective on society’s values and ideals. Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as bad and familyism as good, which in reality is an inconsistent presumption to take. By examining the actual effects and underlying principles of the two, we can see that such preference is questionable.

Effects

Racism has served as a motivation for violence, even genocide and war. This is not true for familyism. We can safely assume that when a nation is divided up by several racial groups, it has a potential for violence and instability; a nation divided by millions of kindred-based units does not have that potential. In terms of obvious consequences, we are at worse comparing a family feud to a civil war. Society in general assumes that familyism carries many benefits, such as child bearing and raising, socialization of individuals, and a source of happiness for the individual who is part of a family. Modern society is hard pressed to find any such benefit to racism, though one can try to argue that establishing racial homogeneity or dominance tends to result in greater stability.

But if examined from a different perspective, familyism carries many negative consequences as well. Due to prioritization, families will of course devote more resources to themselves than to others, leading to a disparity between different family units. On an aggregate, this results in an unequal distribution of wealth, creating poverty and barriers to social justice. In addition, familyism can serve as a breeding ground for racism, as the individual can align her familial preference to racial preference. Thus, we see government creating policies to deal with both racism and familyism, from equal protection to wealth redistribution.

Principles

However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be wrong. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. Familyism violates this ideal just as much as racism does.

---

I never thought this preference was questionable. Family = blood relation. Thus the preference for family members makes sense because it is basic human biology. There are biological and evolutionary advantages to choosing your family members over others. And I’m not talking about nepotism in business or politics, just instances of regular everyday life like you mentioned. I didn’t hear a good reason why family members shouldn’t show more care and spend more money on people who are blood relations than those people who are not. Parents usually if not always have more invested in their own children than in other children who are not familial relations. (Adopted children also count as familial relations in this case.)

You also spoke about equality and wealth distribution. I think you’re saying that there should be no familyism in order to make people more equal to one another. For example, if a wealthy man dies, his wealth should be distributed into the commons to help the common good instead of going to his biological children. But what incentive does the wealthy man have to keep his fortune for future generations of his family if he has not control over where it ends up after his death? In addition wealth distribution can and also does occur outside of the family unit.

I also disagree with your premise that familyism is as violative as racism. In your scenario, comparing a conversation with a white supremacist to a mother buying a bike, a mere toy, for a neighboring child trivializes the issue of racism.