In A Dream Deferred, Shelby Steele tries to delineate what he refers to as a “victim focused racial identity” that permeates post-sixties liberalism. He feels that this popular attitude has “stifled black advancement more than racism itself”, and has caused a shift in focus “from protest to suppression”(Steele, 4). Moreover, he asserts that an unhealthy contingency has developed between the races. Blacks have relinquished their free will, become dependent on whites, and in the process have become empowered by this exchange. And, in his opinion, this contingency, based upon black fate and its link to white redemption has evolved into a convoluted grasp for control– A control that has created a false sense of power since blacks have bartered agency for it. And, according to Steele, without agency there can be no freedom. As long as one group maintains power over another, regardless of the form that power takes, there is no true equality. Because of this, he theorizes, we haven’t moved that far beyond slavery: “black fate [still] remains in white hands” (66). He continues, “There are no good excuses for living off this contingency anymore, unless one has a greater faith in preferential interventionism than in blacks” (68). In other words, it is only when a man can achieve success on his own terms, as an individual without social intervention, that he can attain true freedom and racial equality. As such, Steele thinks many of our current social agendas are outdated and detrimental since they replace black accountability with what he refers to as white blame and redemption. He believes we have formed a mutual co-dependency based on this relation since black victimization would not exist without whites need for redemption.

Shirley Hune, in “Rethinking Race: Paradigms and Policy Formation”, notes a similar phenomena: “Much of race relations literature and analysis has placed communities of color in the victim mode. Communities and researchers of color sometimes assume this position. While this may have held some truth in the past, current and future race realities suggest that this depiction is limited” (32). Hune agrees that the current victim mode is an outdated paradigm. But, she also believes that we can move beyond our current concept of race, while still allowing for race to matter. . She believes that culturally, racial differences and experiences do exist. Accordingly, in her new paradigm, group authority is more relevant than individual achievement. So, in her assessment we should not abandon our “traditional frameworks” altogether, but rather change “how problems and policies are perceived and developed” within those frameworks. (Ibid, Pg. 30).

As previously mentioned, Steele finds many of our current social agendas to be outdated and detrimental since they replace accountability with blame and redemption. Despite the fact that affirmative action, welfare, and other social programs have served us well in the past, he feels that it is important for our society to grow beyond these programs if we are to attain true racial equality. He posits that to continue these programs belittles the capacities of African Americans since they replace physical chains with theoretical ones. Accordingly, Steele believes that if white redemption has outgrown itself, then it is time for us to move forward in a mutually beneficial way.

Yet, before we can determine if redemption has out grown itself, we should understand its roots. In the last hundred years, our nation has been an active participant in blatant racism. Prior to the 1960’s, blacks did not possess civil rights. And, although in 1964, they achieved a legal status that demolished notions of condoned separation, they were still unable to change racisms core. Blacks had gained legal equality, yet failed to live within the boundaries of freedom. They had won their civil rights, but were still unable to excel due to existing prejudice. Whether it was the denial of a job, mortgage, or college admittance, their judicial rights were negligible since they were unable to assert them. Accordingly, since these social barriers persisted, good-intentioned liberals developed social programs that would force change. Within our historical context and environment, this forced change was necessary. Steele thinks, however, that in so doing we have unintentionally created a minority of invalids. He notes: “Many observers who lived through the sixties realize that it was the old American problem of race that did liberalism in. Thus liberalism became preemptive rather than defensive. It no longer protected individuals and fought for equal opportunity but it pursued group rights and equal results. It remedied the victimization before it was manifest. This transformation came from the embrace of victimization as a totalistic explanation of black difficulty. But it changed the basic terms of American liberalism from freedom, rights, and responsibilities to planning, engineering, and entitlements” (13).

Since blacks have still had not received equal opportunity, they suffer from what Steele terms as a structural sense of freedom: “To accept victimization not as one of many variables but as a totalism was to see it as structural—so built into the patterns of society that it could be manifested apart from human will” (13). In other words, superficial freedom and victimization have become the sole reason for black underachievement. Steele notes, “victimization is treated as a totalism [and] keeps us from understanding the true nature of our suffering. It leads us to believe that all suffering is victimization and that all relief comes from the guilty good-heartedness of others. But people can suffer from bad ideas, from ignorance, fear, a poor assessment of reality, and from a politics that commits them to the idea of themselves as victims, among other things” (Steele, 10). Following, through this totalism, a crutch has been created for blacks to lean on. And, according to Steele, this crutch prevents blacks from experiencing true satisfaction and pride. Consequentially, he feels that our societies forced equality possesses very little value, and ultimately sacrifices blacks’ individual freedom. Steele observes, “When black group authority covers up these other causes of suffering just so whites will feel more responsible—and stay on the hook- then that authority actually encourages helplessness in its own people so that they might be helped by whites. It tries to make black weakness profitable by selling it as the white man’s burden” (10-11).

The most frightful aspect of this forced equality, according to Steele, is that it breeds a lack of principles—“the principles of merit, excellence, hard work, delayed gratification, individual achievement, personal responsibility, and so on—principles without which blacks can never achieve true equality” (Steele, 20). Since racial equality has become so engineered, minorities rely on the system instead of themselves and their capabilities. In essence, they shortchange themselves in order to gain a false sense of power. And, this power is what keeps the co-dependency alive, and the relationship of black victimization/white redemption strong. Furthermore, Steele thinks that as long as blacks believe they can benefit from this relationship, nothing will change.

Hune, although a categorical liberal, agrees with Steele on the need for change and the difficulties that may accompany it. She notes, “People who benefit from existing racial paradigms have a vested interest in maintaining them and tend to resist innovation” (29). This ironic statement was apropos of whites prior to civil rights, and is applicable to blacks now. Moreover, what makes this irony more interesting is Hune’s belief that only members of outside communities, who naturally subscribe to a different viewpoint, can interpret and successfully rethink racial theory. Outsiders can testify to inadequacies that may be invisible to the existing community, creating momentum for change. As such, Hune thinks we should work within the confines of existing social programs since they provide a valuable foundation on which to formulate change. Steele, however, thinks that we should destroy these fundamentals since nothing solid can ever be built upon a faulty base. Yet, as the racial pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, it will become increasingly important to find the middle.

Reaching the middle ground, however, will not be easy. Simply too many institutions have a vested interest in keeping things status quo. Steele states, “Government, corporate America, universities, foundations—they [are] all in the business of seeing blacks as victims, of trading an illusion of power for an illusion of redemption” (Steele, 11-12). In short, we have reached a comfort level with our ideologies, and have very little motivation to give them up. Steele calls this “very functional symbioses, and there is always something to be said for function” (12). Hune notes, “racial paradigms are also embedded in ideologies, policies, and practices and are integrated into the formal structures and institutions of U.S. society as well as our everyday lives. They become habits of mind and patterns of behavior taught to subsequent generations of scholars” (29). Can we crawl out of our comfort zone and try to find more innovative solutions to our racial problems? There must be a better way of addressing our inequalities, but until enough people are uncomfortable with our present arrangement, nothing will shift. Although Steele thinks the only remedy is to thoroughly dismantle all of our social programs, Hune believes a major revamping would be adequate. As a society, our shift should be elaborate enough to dislodge all forms of victimization, but not so extreme that our minorities loose their footing on an even playing field.

Difficult as this shift may be, it is possible. Hune notes, “paradigms shift as new models emerge to challenge traditional ways of defining problems” (29). If we begin to challenge our racial co-dependency, a new model will inevitably emerge. This emerging model will cause an evolution in the way we perceive race and equality, and will redefine our social attitudes. Steele views this as an ultimate color-blindness, while Hune anticipates it as an acceptance of our differences. We can create a society that allows people to be who they are without sacrificing their agency or racial respect. And, although racial victimization has been highly detrimental, and although many of our social programs do serve a higher purpose, an evolution needs to occur. One which encompasses acceptance, confidence, and strength. It is time to view one another as equals regardless of our differences. And, when we have achieved that, we will have created a much more valuable paradigm.