Racist Acts And Racist Hummor Philips Summary

In “Racist Acts and Racist Humor”, Michael Philips details three theories regarding how and why racist humor is representative of immorality. Philips states that he concurs with the act-centered theory, and identifies flaws in the other two theories, agent-based and belief-centered, to explain why he believes the act-centered theory is the most plausible. According to the act-centered theory, Philips believes that ‘Basic Racist Acts’ are what set the guidelines concerning which expressions and manifestations of humor are labelled as racist, and therefore immoral. In this essay, I argue in favor of Philips’ interpretation of ‘Basic Racist Acts’ as the guiding framework which establishes powerful social beliefs about what constitutes moral objectionability.

Philips begins by laying out the concept of agent-centered theory. In this theory, the perpetration of a racist act assumes the perpetrator to be a racist actor whose actions stem from both racist beliefs and racist feelings. That is to say, an act is only racist if the actor is acting upon these racist beliefs and/or racist feelings. Philips convincingly argues that this theory is weak because it “reflects the perspective of the morally troubled member of a persecuting group” (Philips 1984, pp. 79). Instead of determining whether an act is racist based upon what the victim feels, this theory focuses on the intentions of the person making the joke. For example, if a person jokes about Jews being ‘greedy’, and openly claims that they made the joke with the intention of dehumanizing Jews, then such an act may be regarded as racist. However, if a person makes the same joke, but claims that they mean no harm because they do not harbor racist feelings or beliefs against Jews, then such an act may not be considered racist. This allows a person to feel morally superior provided that they do not perceive their own actions as racist.
Secondly, Philips elaborates on the theory he agrees with most: the act-centered theory.

The act-centered theory focuses on what Philips calls ‘Basic Racist Acts.’ According to Phillips, ‘Basic Racist Acts’ are those which satisfy either or both of these requirements: 1. A person does an act with the intention of hurting another member of an ethnic group or 2. A person’s act can be expected to hurt the other person because they are a member of an ethnic group. This theory focuses on the effect on the victim to determine whether or not an act was racist rather than the intention of the person who completed such an act. For example, if you refer to someone as a ‘stupid spic’, I am offended because I am Mexican. It does not matter whether your intention was to hurt me. Philips clarifies that an act “[does not have to] succeed in mistreating someone in order to be racist” (Philips 1984, pp. 79). He gives the example of an attempted robbery. Even if a robber leaves with nothing, we condemn the act because we know it may have potentially hurt someone. To elaborate, if someone jokes about black people having big lips with their black friend who does not take offense to said joke, the joke is still classified as racist because we know it has the potential to hurt

someone.
The last theory Philips explains is the belief-centered theory. This theory claims to call an act racist is “to say that [said act] is justified if and only if certain beliefs are true” (Philips 1984, pp. 83). For example, a joke about blacks being illiterate is racist because there are statistics proving blacks have lower literacy rates than whites do. From my understanding, this is perhaps the most flawed theory because much of it is left up to personal interpretation. Philips offers a solution to the many questions that arise from this theory by proposing an amended theory: “A is a racist act if and only if it is believed [by A’s society] that A is justified by some racist belief” (Philips 1984, pp. 83). He states there are two main flaws even within this amended theory: 1. Every wrong against a member of an ethnic group that may possibly be justified by a racist belief is automatically racist and 2. This amended theory makes it impossible to be concerned with the content.
I agree with Philips and believe the act-centered theory is most credible.

My main reason for this is that, within the current political climate, I often find people justifying their actions with excuses that align most with the agent-centered theory. Being Mexican and from a majority-Mexican town, finding people who supported Trump was nearly impossible. However, those who did were adamant in their belief that any undocumented person should be deported regardless of their situation. When confronted about how their views may be detrimental to a multitude of American families, many Trump supporters respond by saying they harbor no ill feelings towards Mexicans, they only are concerned with those that are undocumented. Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, Mexicans have somewhat become a scapegoat for many of America’s issues and simultaneously become the butt of many jokes regarding such issues, especially the wall proposed by Trump. The most common joke I have heard is “What is a Mexican’s favorite sport? Cross country.” Most people who recite this joke claim to do so light heartedly and, abiding by the agent-centered theory, these people are not racist because they do not believe their actions are racist. I believe this to be the agent-centered theory’s largest flaw because, although they may not necessarily be racist, they are directly contributing to an environment that made Trump’s presidency possible in the first

place.
Another reason why I agree most with the act-centered theory may be illustrated by Philips’s example of a person and a large black man walking down the same sidewalk. Philips states a majority of us would subconsciously move away from this man from fear of being attacked. By doing so, we are contributing to an atmosphere that regards black people as inherently dangerous. Plenty of us, whether we want to admit or not, are guilty of subconsciously engaging in acts that promote an environment where certain minorities are seen as treacherous, such as clutching your bag closer or locking your car doors whenever someone of a certain ethnic group is nearby. Even if statistics justify these actions, they are still racist because they contribute to the victimization of the person from a certain ethnic group, which contradicts the belief-centered theory.
To conclude, Philips believes humor is racist if it is intended to hurt a member or members of a certain ethnic group and/or the joke may reasonably be expected to mistreat a member or members of an ethnic group. These ‘Basic Racist Acts’ are determined by the victims of said joke instead of the person making the joke, even if the joke does not succeed in offending a person of intended ethnic group. It is important to not partake in ‘Basic Racist Acts’ in any form because it creates an Us vs. Them dichotomy. Those who do not laugh at a racist joke are seen as outsiders and those who do laugh, whether they would like to or not, are rallied into a community against the ethnic group that is joked about. If we plan on eradicating racism, we need to abide by the act-centered theory and refrain from any joke, even if relatively small, that has the potential to offend a certain ethnic group or promote an environment in which said ethnic group would not be able to thrive.