The Inconsistency of the “Prejudice Plus Power” Definition of Racism

“Prejudice plus power” is now the most commonly used definition of racism in popular leftist, activist, and educational communities. However, it is rarely used consistently or fairly.

Competing Definitions

Disagreement in discussions on what “counts” as racism is largely a semantic issue.

 

• • Literal definition– “race” + “ism”, a system of thought in which race is considered the determining factor of a person’s character.

• • Common definition– prejudice, hostility, or discrimination based on race.

• • Activist definition– prejudice + systemic power.

The activist definition narrows the concept of racism to where only prejudice backed by systemic or institutional power qualifies.

Advocates of this definition argue that it highlights structural oppression; Racism is not just individual hostility, but institutionalized disadvantage. Though systemic racism is a real issue, it is not limited to only specific races, and this definition is often used to defend hostility towards white people– defining it as something other than racism, and therefore excusable or even deserved.

Here are a few contradictions to its usage:

Contradiction #1

Institutional prejudice against white people

 

• • Universities, media, entertainment, academia, publishing, and art communities wield systemic power, and in many cases normalize hostility, stereotyping, and exclusion directed at white people. By the activist definition of “prejudice + power,” this qualifies as racism, as it is a structural pattern of discrimination in institutions. Yet in these cases, it is dismissed and excused.

Contradiction #2

Interpersonal prejudice against non-white people

 

• • If racism requires systemic power, then an individual act of racial hostility should not qualify in most cases, as most individuals do not control institutions, and often do not wield significant social influence. Yet, when a white individual expresses racial hostility towards a non-white person, it is always considered racism. The systemic power requirement is ignored in this case. Meanwhile, when a non-white person directs racial hostility towards a white person, the requirement is enforced, and the act is defined as “not racism.”

Contradiction #3

Social power dynamics

 

• • The activist definition assumes that only white people can hold social power and thus be racist, but in many communities, schools, workplaces, or social groups, non-white people hold social power over white people. If racism requires social power, then that means white people can experience racism in those contexts. But once again, this contradiction is ignored.

The definition is not applied consistently. Instead, it becomes a mechanism of bias, shielding one group while condemning another.

It condemns prejudice when the perpetrator is white, and excuses or minimizes prejudice when the target is white. This reveals that the definition is less of an analytical framework and more of a rhetorical tool to wield power and excuse bias.

A consistent definition of racism must apply equally to all racial groups, whether that be systemic racism or interpersonal racism. When racism against white people is ignored and excused, white people who have been harmed may become resentful and take their anger out on other races, who then take their anger out on white people, and the cycle of retaliatory racism continues. Recognizing that all races can be harmed by racism is the first step in preventing this cycle.