Symbolic racism theory explains policy attitudes via moral values plus outgroup dislike

Evidence

Of the various “new racism” models, symbolic racism theory has been the most influential and controversial (e.g., Sears & Kinder, 1971; Sears, 1988). According to the theory, modern racial prejudice arises from a combination of traditional moral values (e.g., the Protestant work ethic and cultural norms of self-reliance) and negative affect directed at racial and ethnic outgroups. Sears and his colleagues have argued that symbolic racial attitudes are distinct from traditional racism and political conservatism and that they are the primary determinants of attitudes toward policies such as immigration, affirmative action, and minority aid. Symbolic racism theory has had more than its share of critics (e.g., Bobo, 1983; Colleau et al. 1990; Fazio et al. 1995; Miller, 1994; Raden, 1994; Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986; Weigel & Howes, 1985). Some of the most ardent critics have endorsed an alternative position, known as the principled politics hypothesis, which holds that European Americans’ unfavorable attitudes towards racial policy initiatives (e.g., busing, affirmative action) are driven not by racism but by political convictions concerning the proper role of government and equity-based fairness norms (see Sniderman, Crosby & Howell, 2000; Sniderman & Piazza, 1993; Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock & Kendrick, 1991). In Reading 20, Sears, van Laar, Carrillo, and Kosterman defend the symbolic racism perspective against these and other objections (see also Federico & Sidanius, 2002a, 2002b for a discussion of these issues). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 144

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines symbolic racism and the competing principled politics hypothesis, a key conceptual fork in understanding modern American racial attitudes.
• XREF: The principled politics vs. symbolic racism debate echoes charges that moral-sounding objections to immigration or aid are just respectable rationalizations — the same masking dynamic at work in the dress-policing moral panics of the reader’s earlier reading. — connects to: Implicit racial appeals drive welfare opposition through reduced deservingness perceptions — Rachel Wetts and Robb Willer, Who Is Called by the Dog Whistle?…, 168
• SHARE: Worth sending to anyone who politically argues about affirmative action: the empirical dispute over whether opposition is racism or genuine fairness conviction turns on measurement design.