
You’re back in Salem during the 1690s. After an exhaustive hunt for witches, the Lord High Witch Hunter files a bombshell report: Despite his best efforts, he’s failed to find any witches in Salem. Don’t imagine, though, that the fight against witchery is over. During his investigation, the Lord High Witch Hunter uncovered an enormous volume of “implicit witchery” and “structural witchery.” For example, residents of Salem occasionally skip church, or lose interest during the sermon. That’s implicit witchery, pure and simple. Even worse, some leading merchants happily trade with Catholics and pagans. That’s structural witchery at the highest levels of society.
If you’re part of this society, you’d better not laugh. That’s implicit witchery, too. For anyone else, however, the Lord High Witch Hunter’s report is absurd. The magistrate launches a massive witchhunt. He fails to detect actual witches. So he redefines “witchery” as “Lack of single-minded devotion to my faith.” Why bother with this farce? To make a thinly-veiled threat: If you’re not part of the solution to witchery, you’re an implicit/structural witch. And will be burned like a witch.

Similarly, imagine that during the McCarthy era you fail to uncover any actual Communists. The Lord High McCarthyite could admit he was wrong, but where’s the fun in that? Wouldn’t it be better to declare that you’ve discovered a massive dose of “implicit Communism” and “structural Communism”? As long as your society fears you, anything could count. Perhaps support for progressive taxes is implicit Communism. Perhaps the overrepresentation of left-wing academics in state-funded universities is structural Communism. Yes, you can cry, “Bait-and-switch.” But that sounds dangerously close to implicit Communism.
Or suppose you’re in modern Iran. The Lord High Inquisitor hunts for atheists, but can’t find any. So he declares war on implicit atheism and structural atheism, which abound even in the Islamic Republic. Shocking? Not really, because almost anything qualifies as implicit atheism or structural atheism. If this is such an obvious scam, how come hardly anyone in Iran says so? Fear. Minimizing the danger of implicit atheism is a prime example of implicit atheism.
In the modern West, hardly anyone worries about in-the-flesh witches, Communists, or atheists, much less implicit or structural versions of these creeds. But that’s because the targets have changed, not because the age of moral panic is over. And while the list of targets is long, racists and sexists are plainly at the top. The most obvious result is that people spend ample time trying to find racist and sexist individuals. In practice, however, this is as frustrating as trying to find witches in Salem. People today are about as likely to declare themselves racists and sexists as people in 17th-century Massachusetts were to declare themselves brides of Satan. Part of the reason, no doubt, is fear; avowed racists do get punched in the face, after all. The main reason, though, is that almost no one sympathizes with creeds that almost everyone hates.
So what are you supposed to do if you want to continue the good fight against social ills you’ve already practically driven to extinction? Move the goalposts all the way to Mars. These days, the world’s best detectives would struggle to find outright racists and sexists. Yet implicit racism, structural racism, implicit sexism, and structural sexism will always be in plain sight, because the definition expands as the phenomenon contracts.
READER COMMENTS
Daniel
Sep 9 2020 at 2:36pm
Indeed, “the definition expands as the phenomenon contracts.”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465
Scott Sumner
Sep 9 2020 at 3:01pm
You said:
“The main reason, though, is that almost no one sympathizes with creeds that almost everyone hates.”
I believe that there are many racists in America. The reason they seem hard to find is that people try to hide their unfashionable beliefs.
Jonathan S
Sep 9 2020 at 4:30pm
Scott and AMT,
I live in a bubble where issues of race and sex rarely get discussed so I need a different perspective. (I do see social media interactions where people make sexist and racist comments, but I typically ignore/dismiss this as trolling.) What flavors of racism/sexism do you think are most rampant in American society today?
Do you think there is a significant proportion of people who think that a certain race people should have less rights than people of another race?
Do you think there is a significant proportion of people who think that people should not marry a specific race (or outside of their race at all)?
Do you think there is a significant proportion of people who think that people of a certain race are not qualified to perform certain types of jobs?
Scott Sumner
Sep 11 2020 at 4:48pm
I believe that around 10% oppose interracial marriage when asked by pollsters, but I suspect the actual number is higher, as people don’t like to sound racist. But even if only 10% of Americans are racists (and I believe the actual number is more like 25%) that’s still 33 million people. It’s not a trivial number.
I see many racist comments in the comment section of MoneyIllusion, although some of the most extreme stuff gets deleted, so readers don’t see it.
Zeke5123
Sep 10 2020 at 8:14am
It is funny — I too believe there are many racists in America. The difference is their racism is fashionable so they need not hide it.
Jon Murphy
Sep 10 2020 at 9:22am
Oh? Can you point me to one person, any one, who has openly declared “yes, I am a racist! ” Any sort of evidence will do: blog post, Facebook post, op-ed, whatever.
zeke5123
Sep 10 2020 at 10:19pm
There are many people who say nasty things about people because they are white, think things associated with white people are somehow bad, and generally use white as a pejorative.
Some even work for the NYT!
Jon Murphy
Sep 11 2020 at 5:50am
So can you provide me with one such case? And remember, it must be explicit.
zeke5123
Sep 11 2020 at 8:47am
Jon,
I can’t respond to you for some reason.
See Robert Diangelo. https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/peddling-the-idea-that-all-white-people-are-racist-for-profit/
Or how about Sarah Jeong?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-white-racism.html
Or read anything by James Lindsay.
Jon Murphy
Sep 11 2020 at 9:33am
I think it was because of the multiple links. Sometimes, those get caught up in the spam filter.
The links are all well and good, but don’t support your case. They are other people saying those folks are racist. I am looking for support of your claim that some people are proud racists. In other words, I want them, in their own words, saying they are racist. If the racism is implied, hidden behind other justifications (as is the case with Diangelo), or is some other way esoteric, then that is in support of Scott’s point: they have to hide their racism.
Jose Pablo
Sep 10 2020 at 2:50pm
Let us get some historical perspective:
Is there more racism in America now than 200 years ago?
more than 100 years ago?
50?
10?
It is exceedingly difficult to defend that the definition of “racism” has not evolved. Very significantly. To the point that judging the people of years ago with today standards let them without the slightest possibility of defense.
Difficult judgment call, but there is a risk that this (ongoing) evolution has gone/will go along the lines of “implicit” or “structural” racism, as per Bryan’s definition in this post.
AMT
Sep 9 2020 at 3:18pm
I agree with Scott, and would say a lot of the racism and sexism is hidden. There is definitely still some racism and sexism, but the problem is that the “implicit” or “structural” racism/sexism allegations try to write a blank check to justify any policy desired without any real evidence to justify the specific policy. “Can’t find any evidence? It must just be structural racism/sexism then!” This does try to expand racism/sexism far beyond the original definition. I recently read this article which I think does a good job illustrating how extreme and illogical these arguments trying to expand the definition of racism can be:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=cr&utm_content=content&fbclid=IwAR0dCKHxZCvbbfiZCegPVBAe8Q4lOusQ3TtzzwB-R_q5JUNFTPZDQ39jruE
And Scott Alexander’s take on racism is always a good read:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
Art Carden
Sep 9 2020 at 3:41pm
Glenn Loury and John McWhorter have done a few great episodes of the Glenn Show on this. They suggest that when you hear “that person is problematic because…” you should replace it with “that person is a witch because…”
NPS
Sep 9 2020 at 3:48pm
One interesting problem to be found with these expanding definitions of racism, especially in the “hegemonic Whiteness” types of creeds, is that they introduce a lot of baroque (being charitable) reasons why a lot of nice white liberals are actually implicitly racist or participating in racism but actually have difficulty incorporating actual, non-controversial racists and white supremacists into the supposed White Supremacist hegemony.
For instance, “actual white supremacists” do not assume being white as the default or has a desire to see whiteness universalized, very often they deliberately emphasize and desire “whiteness” to be a particular thing through an emphasis on having a white ethno-state and so on. If the problem with racism we face today is hegemonic whiteness, then the Actual Racists(tm) would be allies in constraining white hegemony. No one would want to say that, though, so there must be something wrong.
I guess it could be acknowledged that Actual Individual Racists are in a sense outside the system or society and are not really the concern for polite reform, but that just seems to say that whatever white supremacy is according to the new “critical view” is not what actually scares or repulses people.
Phil H
Sep 9 2020 at 9:10pm
Hang on…
I get the reduced prevalence linked with increased outrage phenomenon. But the analogy seems to break down very badly, because there really are a lot of witches.
MeToo covers a lot ground, and obviously at the minor end of the scale, the men’s sins are slight. But it’s also about real rape and very blatant physical sexual harassment. And it’s not just a few people, and they really do permeate all levels of society – Weinstein and that Epstein guy.
This is comparable to how the threat of communist infiltration was real (as well as being inflated by McCarthy). But we had entire arms of the government security services devoted to rooting out those communist moles. The people who are supposed to have rooted out rapists seem to have been quite ineffective.
The argument on racism would go similarly: there are in fact many witches, and there is no MI5 trying to catch them, therefore some other mechanism is needed and warranted.
(In fact, I agree with the post’s underlying assessment, which is that these very visible manifestations of anti-racism and anti-sexism are appearing just as the racist and sexist threats subside. But I don’t think that the comparison to witchcraft or reds under the bed is particularly apt.)
OH Anarcho-Capitalist
Sep 10 2020 at 8:11am
Agree- history vindicated McCarthy – there WERE communists & sympathizers in the State Dept and Hollywood was (and still is) rife with Leftists, many of whom back in the day were members of the USCP, which got financial support from Moscow.
The fact that McCarthy went about the process haphazardly doesn’t mean he was wrong…
Mark Z
Sep 10 2020 at 4:38pm
How do you know they were any more effective at rooting out communists than modern police are at rooting out rapists? I don’t think it was merely that McCarthy inflated the problem. It may have been worse in Britain, but there really were a lot of communists and communist informants in the government and I think Soviet records show that nowhere near all their informants were caught. The issue with McCarthy, I think, was specificity. McCarthy and the McCarthyites accused many people of being communists who weren’t communists.
It’s perfectly possible to simultaneously have lots of communists/racists/sexists in a society and getting away with their misbehavior and for lots of people to be punished or persecuted for acts of communism/racism/sexism that they didn’t commit. The ongoing “anti-racist” movement in the US (I think this was true to a lesser extent of the MeToo movement) is a very low-specificity mechanism. Some defend it by more or less saying, “we have to break a few eggs to make the omelette,” but more often than not it’s not that people are making errors, it’s that they’re breaking eggs on purpose. What makes ‘systemic’ or ‘implicit’ racism problematic is that they’re almost trivial accusations nowadays. How do we know that such and such an institution is systemically racist? It seems that the fact that it’s an institution that exists in America today is sufficient. The model of racism/sexism based on individual behavior, where the output of institutions is the aggregate of individual behavior (in other words, reductionism) is preferable IMO because it’s falsifiable, but implciit/systemic racism, these may not quite be like witchcraft in that they’re not nonexistent by definition, but they do share the quality that they’re accusations that are pretty much impossible disprove.
Thomas Hutcheson
Sep 10 2020 at 8:28am
This seems to miss the point of what “structural” X-ism implies.
As I understand that class of arguments, they imply, a la Schelling, that even very small X-ist preferences (so small perhaps as to be invisible to the preference holder) which implies in turn that policy directed exclusively at preventing the acting out of the X-ist preference at the micro level is not feasible and therefore some more macro policy may be needed.
Robert M
Sep 10 2020 at 8:29am
A different take can be that the victims of some of such wrongs can only speak about them freely when the number of oppressors decreases. When there’s many racists, the victims of racism won’t be able to combat them effectively and be heard. Similarly with sexism. I don’t know if this is actually the case here (and surely less so with racism than with sexism), and I absolutely agree with the view that there is a lot of witch-hunting going on in today’s world. But maybe it’s at least a factor.
Daniel Carroll
Sep 10 2020 at 10:07am
“Structural” communism would be an actual communist government, where, incidentally, the people are all to aware of the problems with that type of governance.
“Structural” witchery, I suppose, would be a system that promotes witchcraft, even if it rarely uses that label and the existence of magic is, shall we say, problematic. Indeed, those days, it was structural Christianity that oppressed witches.
Structural racism is a system where those with dark skin are more likely to be denied rights enjoyed by those with fair skin. It does not need obvious individual racist attitudes for it to exist. It is well documented that complexion plays a substantial role in life outcomes, as well as likelihood of arrest and incarceration, after controlling for demographics, education, and other variables. Indeed, as it turns out, mass incarceration of blacks was a political strategy started by Nixon. And it worked too well among white voters.
My theory on structural racism is mathematical. Everyone has subconscious biases, some subtle and some not so subtle. Across a population of 330 million people, some biases cancel out as noise, while others multiply and create feedback loops. Structural racism is the later variety.
I’m not in academia, so I tend to find academic witch hunts to be an unfortunate side effect of academic culture, where accountability to the truth is controlled mostly by gate keepers. When not fighting over the size of their offices, professors fight over the purity of each others’ beliefs.
Jose Pablo
Sep 10 2020 at 2:37pm
On this topic, here is something that is actually happening in Spain.
https://www.periodistadigital.com/economia/e-motor/20200908/fiscalia-dolores-delgado-marlaska-maricon-considera-machistas-senales-trafico-noticia-689404362168/
Sorry it is in Spanish. The new is about the Spanish Attorney General complaining in her 2020 Annual Report of the outrageous sexism implicit in some of the Spanish traffic signs … It is, for sure, an interesting focus in 2020 …
Mark Z
Sep 10 2020 at 4:13pm
Wow, that is really sexist of the attorney general to assume women can’t have short hair, wear baseball caps, and/or carry briefcases, and that men can’t have pigtails and carry purses. I’d demand an apology if I were a Spaniard. (I’m being sarcastic of course)
RPLong
Sep 10 2020 at 6:01pm
One issue here is that Caplan’s post unapologetically utilizes methodological individualism, while those who decry implicit and structural racism have deliberately abandoned it. Individual racists are easy to identify, and their numbers are small indeed, so Caplan’s point is spot on. But structural racism is defined to be a phenomenon of results in aggregate, and as long as some groups in society consider themselves to be underprivileged, they will continue to believe their problems are structural of they fail to find a real witch.
Jose Pablo
Sep 10 2020 at 7:38pm
Males represent 91% of the prison population in the United States. 80%+ of the suicides are committed by males.
It is difficult to find more clear “results in aggregate” and yet I am not aware of anybody claiming/discussing that this is due to “sexism”.
Why?, it does look like if the system was rigged against males.
Obviously I don´t think this is the case. But the interesting question is why some “results in aggregate” are due to “ism” and others don´t?
RPLong
Sep 11 2020 at 11:53am
It’s a fair question. I, for my part, subscribe to the methodological individualism I describe above. I still think there is a lot of individual racism out there – I’ve witnessed a lot of it first- and secondhand. I think there is enough out there that it ought to occupy all of our attention. I don’t think we get anywhere by carving society into groups and comparing outcomes. That’s a sign of the current times, though.
Mark Z
Sep 10 2020 at 10:30pm
I don’t think abandoning methodological individualism saves the systemic racism hypothesis from its problems. If someone who doesn’t have a racist thought in his head puts on a police uniform and suddenly is a racist because, say, in his mind, there’s some Goffmanesque association between the role of police officer and racism, well, that’s still individual racism, and the belief that you have to be racist to be a good cop is an ‘individually racist’ belief. And it’s also, at least theoretically, observable. Somewhere in ‘the system’ some individual has to be making racist decisions for there to be a racist outcome. Whether it’s because they are consciously racist, or they subconsciously associate their job with racism, or peer effects in their workplace induce racist behavior, a system can only yield racism if one or more of the persons that make it up is being racist. I don’t think that’s a conclusion peculiar to methodological individualism but rather one any non-superstitious model of the world must reach.
Maybe one might claim that there are lots of small racist decisions or habits that individual police officers/teachers/etc. make that can’t be measured but that compound to yield a racist outcome, but then there’s nothing peculiarly ‘systemic’ about that, we’d only talk about the ‘system’ because we can’t pinpoint the specific individuals responsible, in which case maybe the more appropriate analogy for the current response to alleged systemic racism isn’t witchhunts but decimation in the ancient roman army. In any case, any hypothesis that seems tailor-made to be untestable deserves some suspicion.
Adam Bates
Sep 13 2020 at 8:24am
Isn’t a bunch of “The Myth of the Rational Voter” dedicated to several implicit and specific biases Americans have? Is comparing the existence of such things to the existence of witchcraft a withdrawal of those arguments?
Comments are closed.