The Function of Prediction: Race, Fried Chicken, and Prostates
by RGraham
The Black Man and the Chicken
I am a very black man. In fact, I think that I am one of the blackest men at the Graduate Center. I am so black that sometimes, when the sun is shining just right, I appear navy blue. As a kid, I was often teased by other black kids because of my color — I was called Dark Vader. Now that is black!
But no matter how dark I am, no one would make a serious claim that my greater pigmentation necessarily leads to a greater practice of cultural traits traditionally connected with African-Americans. Take the stereotype of blacks loving fried chicken, for example. Just because I have very dark skin does not mean that I want three pieces of fried chicken with my biscuit instead of the usual two!
The stereotypes that connect black people with this particular fowl can be explained structurally — most likely because the hearty and fertile bird prospered in the agricultural South, and the continuing low prices of chicken up to the present day made possible through American subsidies to behemoth corporate chicken producers. It is no wonder that a perpetually impoverished people would structure their family meals around the economical meat. And it is no wonder that they would find the highest caloric method of cooking — frying — the most satisfying. One needs a lot of energy to pick all that cotton. Indeed, one could even use the African-American experience to formulate a prediction about general human behavior, and assert that a group of people under similar conditions will be predisposed to develop a similar affinity to a similarly economical food, and that through cultural transmission this predisposition will appear in later generations until structural conditions make this behavior less advantageous (i.e., Colonel Sanders keeps raising the price of a chicken snack).
My darker skin does not make a difference in this matter, and only muddles the situation. Yet, it happens quite frequently. For example, a standard explanation for eating preferences would explain differences through income, geography, age, occupation, and, of course, race. By including race in the explanation, a conclusion would be generated positing, that on average, black people eat 15 more buckets of chicken than white people. The social scientist would be satisfied in concluding that race “explained 15 percent of the variance.”
It would be safe to argue that there is nothing inherently chicken-loving in black people, and that the better explanation would be that under certain structural conditions (economic, agricultural) certain structural behaviors will occur. This type of explanation has the added benefit of being able to make predictions. Thus under said conditions we would expect not only the Jackson clan, but the Patels, the Martinezes, and the Weinbergers to make chicken a large part of their consumption.
The above is ridiculous. But my hope is to present an easily objectifiable scenario for analysis so we can distance ourselves from the political correctness of race and ethnicity studies, making it easier for us to see the questionable logic that holds similar, more real examples together.
Making Predictions
I have more to say, but before delving into the issue further, it may be necessary to draw some boundaries — create a few rules of engagement, if you will. For, if past experience is any indicator, my present remarks will be misinterpreted. The boundaries are an effort to pre-empt as much misunderstanding as possible.
First, there are many ways of approaching the understanding of race relations in this country: social, cultural, political, economic, biological and, most commonly, varying mixtures of the aforementioned. Each model generated by these ways of understanding is equally valid and reliable in its own right. I even think that the local knowledge people have used to navigate racial structures are just as useful as any other. For example, my grandmother was able to navigate Jim Crow South Carolina fairly successfully. She had developed a model of behavior which allowed her to generate as much comfort and self-esteem as possible within a context designed to systematically strip her of any dignity whatsoever. The type of knowledge she used was valid indeed. And if it were not reliable she may not have made it to her 80th birthday. Thus, whatever I write later will not make the assertion that it is somehow inherently better. I will only assert that its function is different.
Second, a distinction should be made between explanation and prediction. This is important. Most of the discourse about race and ethnicity (and any social problem for that matter) is directed towards explaining prior phenomena. Volumes have been dedicated to explaining the ideological justifications the South used to support past slavery, and equal amounts have been dedicated to explaining current racial inequality. We have all seen those statistics in the news which begin with “A recent study showed that…” and invariably ends with “African-Americans, sadly, rank at the bottom of this category.” Explaining prior phenomena has never been a problem in social science. Indeed, the social sciences have made tremendous strides in debunking essentially conservative biological and economic views of racial inequality by explaining those differences through structural inequalities. They have shown that these inequalities are endemic of the way in which our legal and economic system has been constructed. Now, I propose that alongside the explanations of the past, we also need to construct theories that predict what will happen if and when these structures are modified.
Now, with the rules stated, let me make my central claim: I think that the way in which race is generally studied could strongly benefit from a collection of social scientists who emphasize the scientific understanding of general human behavior. This means making empirically based predictions about our world that are testable. The function of this way of understanding is to provide some predictive power to the explanatory data that has been uncovered in the social sciences.
We need practitioners who make accurate predictions; otherwise we will be forced to listen to all kinds of intellectuals who have no background in the social sciences speak on racial issues simply because they too can explain: see Shelby Steele (literature professor), Cornel West (philosopher), Deborah Dickerson (lawyer), and John Mchworter (linguist). These people, none of them social scientists, are given undo legitimacy in affairs where scientific understanding is vital. Their only qualification is that they are black and are intellectuals. Let me give an example. In a few years it will be time for me to begin getting periodical check ups for prostate cancer. I am not going to find a porn star and ask him or her to do my checkup simply because they have had a lot of experiences with male bodies. Both my prostate and society are serious matters that should be handled by experts who can make accurate predictions based on solidly empirical data.
The Power of Prediction
Maybe I should add some meat to the bones of all this speculation. In The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality, Thomas Shapiro has done a fine job in explaining the processes that allow individuals who have wealth assets to find better housing and better education for their kids. He posits that while income between black and white has narrowed, the wealth gap in the form of savings and other assets continues to grow, and this gap creates inequality because the wealthier are able to buy homes in better school districts and send their kids to better schools.
The book is a showcase of social science prowess and pitfalls. The explanation is elegant in its simplicity and impressive in its accuracy. Shapiro derives a “cost” related to being an African-American — around $94,000 — which he computes by figuring the difference between the average amount of wealth generated by a white person’s income versus that of a black one. The explanation is exemplary.
But there is a problem. There is no reason why black skin should be the focus of the book. By my reading, wealth inequality affects any person who comes from a family with no money in the bank (Shapiro admits as much), and the uniqueness of black individuals derives mainly from the consequences of racism in the form of housing redlining. It is not their skin color that is unique — it is the symbolically conditioned reactions of individuals in power (money lenders) to their color that determines this racism and redlining. This is subtle, but the distinction is tremendous. Theoretically (and in historical reality as well), any minority group in a society who faces these symbolically conditioned reactions will end up the same as blacks in the US.
Shapiro could have just as easily written his book about inequality for all people who meet the conditions he has outlined. The fact of being black should not be the focus of the study. It is unwittingly racist, implying that only those who have dark skin experience wealth inequality. Furthermore, because the emphasis is on explaining the inequality, and no predictions were made, any conservative with an inclination to disprove Shapiro can simply select whatever data he wants and construct his own explanation of past events. Making an accurate prediction would make such a strategy increasingly difficult.
Doomsday
Let me paint a doomsday scenario — a suggestion of the worst that could happen. People in the commanding heights will return to consulting evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists for answers to our social dilemmas not unlike the 19th and early 20th century, because they already attempt to use the power of prediction to understand human behavior.
In this doomsday scenario, we will be right back were we started some one hundred years ago: essentially conservative explanations that will blame the victim for their plight instead of looking at the social structures which have influenced and molded them. This is a battle of ideas, fellow chicken lovers. There is no truth lying out there waiting to be discovered; but there are certainly more and more accurate ways of predicting what’s going to happen tomorrow.
I would be the first to argue that it is fruitful to look at particular ethnic groups’ experiences. The black condition is unique in certain ways from the condition of those we color white, yellow, brown, and red. Each should be studied accordingly. But there is a place for prediction in social sciences as well. If we truly believe that human behavior is general, and that it is social, legal, and economic structures that lead to racial and ethnic inequality, then we should not shy away from identifying those structures and working towards making accurate predictions that do not privilege one group over the other. Making predictions gives social science the power to pre-empt ideological claims by conservative elements in society who are not amenable to an equal and just society.
So, who is going to predict who eats tomorrow’s chicken?
