Photo: Terren in VirginiaThere were so many wild cards in this past presidential election that surely scholars will be poring over it for years to come. In light of Obama‘s victory, I had a thought that may already be on some scholar’s mind, although the proof of this thesis will hardly be simple.
It goes like this. For years, some scholars (including Roland Fryer) have argued that one factor in the black-white education gap is the “acting white” phenomenon, in which some students, as Fryer and David Austen-Smith wrote:
… have tremendous disincentives to invest in particular behaviors (i.e., education, ballet, etc.) due to the fact that they may be deemed a person who is trying to act like a white person (a k a “selling-out”). Such a label, in some neighborhoods, can carry penalties that range from being deemed a social outcast, to being beaten or killed.
If you believe in the “acting white” effect — not everyone does — then should you also believe in the potential of an “acting Obama” effect? That is, if “acting white” means that certain kinds of accomplishment are considered off-limits by certain kinds of black kids, will the fact that a black man (O.K., a mixed-race man) is now president of the United States change the perception of what it means to be accomplished, and what it means to be black?
For black school kids, will the positive effect of a black president trump the negative effect of the “acting white” stereotype? Or might it even piggyback the stereotype? — i.e., if you’re willing to act really white, you get to run the free world.
Conversely, I’ve heard people say that when white people act stupid, they are “acting Bush.”
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Is this question really being asked?
How far back (with respect to A.A. culture) are you going when you talk about this? It’s not like there weren’t role models in the past.
Since you noted that Obama is a “mixed-race” individual, shouldn’t you also see (if there was any way that you could, which I seriously doubt) that there was an “acting white” effect on “white” kids (and I seriously doubt that you’ll be able to do that with terms that are only grounded in economic theory)?
When will economists stop trying to use economics as a way to explain things dealing with “race”? It’s not like race is defined in economic terms; so what gives?
Obama Isn’t black; he may have cultural ties, but that doesn’t mean that culture should be equivocated with race (whatever THAT happens to be, if anything at all).
Let’s face it. The blacks who decry their fellows as “acting white” and “selling out” will adjust their criteria to support their social position. Psychologically, they need to feel superior in some way, and denying someone else’s success is the easiest way; there’s no effort involved!
It’s a slap in their face when someone tries to become successful by “acting white” or even possibly “acting Obama” because they themselves are not successful and choose (either consciously or unconsciously) to remain downtrodden.
They’ve rejected Colin Powell, and rejected Condoleeza Rice, so they will reject Barack Obama as a sellout too.
I worry more that Barack Obama will be the “exception that proves the rule.” Obama can be used by those in the majority to “prove” that African Americans can succeed, if only they will try hard enough to emulate the values of our white culture. But as many above have pointed out, Obama’s victory is not that of a poor black child raised in the ghetto overcoming numerous obstacles in order to attain the highest position in our government. It is the victory of an individual with dark skin – which is no doubt a milestone! – who was raised by members of the dominant group, with access to quality education, with sufficient monetary and cultural resources to learn to navigate the system.
I don’t think this will reduce the stigma attached to “acting white.” If anything, it affirms that those who benefit from doing so are the ones who start off white enough to begin with.
While I don’t doubt the need for an Obama-esque role model in the African American community, I think Michelle stands to serve as an equally strong influence on the culture in general and I look forward to seeing how the whole family is perceived on both a national level and within smaller cultural groups
Having grown up in a city of 100,000 citizens of which only 800 are Black. I can say from observation that one doesn’t have to be Black in order to live the ‘Ghetto’ culture.
Those white kids from neighbourhoods of perennial underachievers are just as held down by their white peers as I’m sure Black youths are in other cities.
This isn’t a matter of race, therefore, so much as it is a matter of culture and wealth.
I’m not at all convinced this is just a black/white thing. It’s certainly more severe in the black community because of a lot of the additional pressures its members feel.
However, there is a raging anti-intellectual feeling in American society as a whole. Intelligence and education aren’t valued as widely as they once were. Qualified experts no longer receive the respect they deserve. To me, the overall trend is the more telling one.
The problem is that joining the establishment is so strongly perceived as emulating “white” culture. If you’re a black person, do you want to be included or excluded? If Obama acting intelligent, respectable and calm is “acting white” then what’s the alternative to that. The people who act that way are included in the establishment, and the people who don’t are not. Whatever race they are. Nobody is going to elect Johnny Knoxville to high office. That’s just the way it is.
@RobertSeattle-
Obama is an atheist — he simply started going to church when he realized it would be politically convenient for him to do so. He was not raised religious — he simply picked it up in his late 20′s when he knew he would need a “religious” background if he were ever going to be a successful politician.