The Bridge Over the Racial Divide: Coalition Politics and the Pursuit of Policies to Help Ordinary Families and Workers in Their Personal Lives

By Kenneth V. Hardy

Dr. William Julius Wilson, Distinguished Professor from Harvard University and Author of the new book, The Bridge Over the Racial Divide: Rising Inequality and Coalition Politics, delivered the Saturday morning plenary address. Dr. Wilson, widely noted for his controversial views regarding the "declining significance of race," provided an eloquent presentation of his ideas regarding race, class, and coalition politics ? largely extracted from his aforementioned new book.

According to Dr. Wilson, "economic inequality has increased significantly in the last three decades, and a progressive, multiracial coalition is needed to combat it." He further asserted that our society's heavy emphasis on race stifles, if not precludes, our ability to envision how middle and lower class groups can coalesce to forge policies that are mutually beneficial. According to Wilson, "…as long as middle and lower class groups are fragmented along racial lines, they will fail to see how their combined efforts could promote policies that reflect their interests. Put another way, a vision of American society that highlights racial differences rather than commonalties makes it difficult for us to see the need or appreciate the potential for mutual political support across racial lines."

Wilson made a passionate plea to the AFTA members in attendance to devote closer attention to what he referred to as the "rising (economic) inequality" among American families. He reminded us that in the decades following World War II, all income groups experienced economic advancement, including the poor. Thus, in a sense, "the poor were actually becoming less poor." In this regard, according to Wilson, "a rising tide did lift all boats." This pattern, Wilson noted, began to change in the early 1970s and the gap that existed between those at the top and those at the bottom became considerably wider. This rising inequality has persisted for well over two decades, although Wilson indicated that there are some preliminary signs suggesting that it has slowed in the last three years. He indicated that the most recent trend is attributable to the current strength of the economy and will probably remain as long as the economy remains strong.

Wilson stated that history has demonstrated that the trends of rising inequalities have often been associated not only with economic changes, but also with the erosion of what MIT's economist Frank Levy referred to as "the nation's equalizing institutions." "Public education, unions, the welfare state, broadly defined, international trade regulation and other political structures that respond to market outcomes and insure that ordinary families benefit from economic growth" are but a few examples of Equalizing Institutions as defined by Wilson. These institutions, according to Wilson, were much stronger from 1947 to 1970 than they are today. He maintained that they will have to be strengthened today to insure that the rising inequality remains in remission.

It is Wilson's contention that the government can assume a vital role in ensuring that the wage gap between those at the top and those on the bottom continues to shrink. He believes that attention to the development and execution of macro-economic and social policies directed toward benefiting "ordinary American families"( a term Wilson prefers to use as a means of avoiding polarizing terms such as 'class' 'race' 'poor' etc.) is a means of creating a rising tide that will lift all boats. Wilson cited several governmental initiatives that he believes have assisted ordinary American families. He noted that the expansion of the earned income tax credit in1986, 1990, and 1993, as well as the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 stand as examples of governmental efforts that helped to ease the burdens of "vulnerable families." While Wilson lauded the merits of these two initiatives, he was also quick to acknowledge that many of the government's actions and policies exacerbate rather than alleviate the economic stresses of ordinary families.

To address his concerns regarding the rising inequality, the weakening of the nation's Equalizing Institutions, and the current inertia and insensitivity characteristic of many governmental policies, Wilson strongly recommended the creation of a progressive multiracial political coalition. Such a coalition would be charged with generating a national debate on the government's current social and economic policies, and would prompt public officials to consider the effects of their action or inaction on a broad range of issues that impact vulnerable families. Wilson admonished that while the focus of this group must be devoted to political-social activism particularly with regard to economic and social policy, he did not call for the creation of a third political party. The foundation of the coalition would be organizations committed to fighting social inequality and would draw its membership and leadership from a broad cross section of American people. Wilson believes that it is critical that the group avoids an overemphasis on race because "the incessant attention given to race, in his view, obscures the many concerns, values, and aspirations that Black, White, Latino, Asian and American Indians share. It is his vision that the multiracial coalition would craft progressive political messages that resonate with broad segments of the public and emphasize the benefits it would bring to all groups who were struggling economically in America, not just poor minorities.

Wilson believes very strongly that devoting too much attention to racial issues is counterproductive. To substantiate his view, he quoted studies by political scientists Jennifer Hochschild and Reuel Rogers suggesting that the more a multiracial coalition focuses on issues of racial and ethnic equality per se, the less stable it will be and the more likely it will become fragmented into competitive factions. It was further suggested that the reverse was also discovered to be true as well. In other words, the more a multiracial coalition focuses on issues that are not ostensibly about race, and have the potential to involve a wider range of people of all identities, the greater its chance of persistence and success.

Although Wilson's speech was not specifically directed to Family Therapists, I thought there was a great deal that we could extract and apply to our work. I also thought his ideas were provocative, controversial, and provided the foundation for spirited and fruitful discourse throughout the conference.

Wilson's comments served as a powerful reminder regarding how difficult, ambitious, and perhaps even shortsighted it would be for us to rely on the "politically and economically elite (as he referred to them) to advance, unveil, and initiate effective policies on behalf of ordinary American families. Embedded throughout Wilson's speech was a call to reactivate activism. As family therapists, I certainly believe it is critical for us to hold steadfastly to our efforts and ideals to be advocates for those who are poor, downsized, dispirited, deskilled, and marginalized. In this regard, it becomes imperative for us to continue attending to the hidden dimensions of class and economic oppression involved in our work and perhaps within AFTA as well.

It appeared to me that Wilson expended considerable energy and effort making the claim that class, not race, is most salient in terms of the current social order. As family therapists, it was my deeply heartfelt hope that Wilson's speech would inspire us to further resist segregated, dichotomous thinking. In so doing, we could avoid surrendering to the trap of having to generate simplistic answers to questions such as: 1) Is race or class most salient? 2) Are Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Asians, and American Indians alike or different?

I also believe that resisting segregated thinking would have made it possible for Wilson to entertain the possibility that a) maybe the obliteration and obscuring of racial and ethnic differences, and a move back to the melting pot philosophy might be just as perilous and factious as is the exaggeration or over-focus on our similarities, b) in addition to a multiracial coalition charged to examine class, we also need a multiethnic coalition charged to examine race, and c) even in sharing poverty, the experiences of men and woman, whites and blacks, and adults and children are often unequal.

In summary, I thought Dr. Wilson's address examined a number of issues that are germane to us as therapists. I found his ideas intriguing, provocative, though at times lacking an acute appreciation for the significance of context.

Kenneth V. Hardy, PhD is a Professor in the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Syracuse University, where he also maintains a private practice.