American Political Science Review (2020) 114, 4, 963–975 doi:10.1017/S0003055420000659 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use. The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities DAVID SCHRAUB University of California, Berkeley issident minorities” are members of marginalized groups who dissent from the consensus “ group position on matters seen as critical to their group’s collective liberation. This paper D articulates the distinctive political status—powers, vulnerabilities, and obligations—of dissident minorities. Dissident minorities may be especially vulnerable to slurs or ostracism as “self-

hating.” But they also can wield significant public influence by positioning themselves as exceptional and https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659

. . exemplary members of their group. Both the powers and vulnerabilities of dissident minorities, in turn, converge around the prospect of “tokenization”—the use of the dissident minority’s dissident opinion by majority group actors as a means of discharging a stipulated obligation to engage with the minority group writ large. While dissident minorities should be free to hold and advocate for their divergent positions in public spaces, they retain a distinctive obligation to not offer themselves out as adequate replacements for engagement with the broader group.

n 2019 the House Oversight Committee, respond- deny the severity of the problem and contend that the I ing to the rise in racist activity in the United States, Jewish organizations alleging antisemitism were acting

convened a hearing focused on American white in bad faith in order to suppress anti-Zionist activism. https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms nationalism. While most participants were emphatic Jewish Voice for Labour offered itself out as an alter- about the threat white nationalism posed to African native Jewish resource for the Labour Party that could Americans and other minorities, the Republican witness, replace the Zionist-identified JLM (Rich 2018, chap.7). Black conservative activist Candace Owens, took a dif- Like Owens, JVL’s sharp public dissent from positions ferent tone. Owens, a prominent proponent of “Blexit” that otherwise mostly united British Jews curried them (Blacks exiting the Democratic Party), attacked the very favor with elements of the British left but did not premise of the hearing, deriding white nationalism as endear them to the bulk of the Jewish community. “isolated, uncoordinated, and fringe” and contending Owens and Jewish Voice for Labour are examples of that it was not even among the “top 100 problems facing “dissident minorities”: members of marginalized groups [B]lack Americans” (Knowles 2019). Owens’ vocal criti- who dissent from a consensus group position on matters cisms of positions often viewed as core to Black Ameri- seen as critical to their group’s collective liberation. And can equality have rendered her a deeply unpopular as both Owens and JVL demonstrate, dissident minor- figure in much of the Black community even as she holds ities often influence public dialogue to a degree that growing influence with American conservatives. seemingly far exceeds what one would expect from their

, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , Around the same time, the UK Labour Party was numbers alone, occupying a political status that cannot embroiled in a controversy over antisemitism. Many reduce to accounts describing the minority group more British Jewish organizations, including the Jewish generally. This article thus identifies and excavates “dis- Labour Movement (Labour’s official Jewish affiliate), sident minorities” as an analytically useful category testified about a wave of harassment emanating from characterized by distinctive political powers and vulner- party activists that significantly impeded the Jewish abilities. These in turn generate a distinctive political ’

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 community s ability to participate in political spaces. obligation carried by all persons (inside and outside of

These attacks often framed themselves as “anti- the group) to reject tokenization. “Dissident minority” is , on on , Zionist,” but were experienced by their targets as anti- a political category; it refers to ideological dissent, not semitism. While these experiences alienated much of identity-based oppression. And the anti-tokenization the British Jewish community from Labour, a new principle is a political obligation: it inheres in any case

170.106.33.14 group named “Jewish Voice for Labour” emerged to of deliberation, formal or informal, geared towards orienting or legitimating collective social action. Part I defines “dissident minority” and establishes its

. IP address: address: IP . David Schraub, Lecturer in Law, University of California, Berke- conceptual contours. A dissident minority is not any ley, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Political Science, University of member of a minority group who takes a position California, Berkeley, [email protected]. contrary to the majority of their minority-group com- Prior versions of this article were presented at the American Political patriots. It is rather specific to dissent vis-à-vis their Science Association conference, the Association for Political Theory conference, the UC-Berkeley Political Theory workshop, and the fellow minority group members around a particular UC-Berkeley Race, Resistance, and Inequality workshop. Thanks to type of issue—that which the minority group generally Jeremy Elkins, Nina Hagel, Elliot Mamet, Sarah Song, Joseph War- considers to be central to their collective equality or ren, and Kristin Zuhone for their helpful comments and questions. equal standing in broader society. Most Jews are pro- Received: January 11, 2020; revised: June 20, 2020; accepted: June 25, choice, and most Jews are Zionist, but only anti-Zionist https://www.cambridge.org/core 2020. Jews are “dissident minorities.”

963 Downloaded from from Downloaded David Schraub

Parts II and III delineate the distinctive vulnerabil- survival or equal standing in the larger society. It is a ities and powers possessed by dissident minorities. On political and ideological category, demarcated by a the former, a host of slurs—“Uncle Tom,”“Self-Hating sincere divergence in opinion regarding these critical Jew,”“Kapo”—are geared specifically towards deni- issues.1 Prominent examples might include Black con- grating and undermining dissident minorities. More- servatives or Jewish anti-Zionists (or, for that matter, over, dissident minorities are uniquely disadvantaged American Jewish Trump supporters).2 Importantly, the in their ability to construct their own identity as mem- criteria for an issue being one “that the group takes to bers of their minority-identity group. All minority be important to its survival or equal standing” is meant members may suffer from stereotyping and majoritar- to be practical, not essentialist. Indeed, it makes no ian prejudices that create a mismatch between their difference whether the issue actually is one that has lived experience and how their group identity is con- these high stakes, let alone whether such rarefied status structed in the public eye. But dissident minorities in is essential to the very nature of the group-qua-group. some ways suffer a greater indignity: the alien construc- After all, one suspects that a frequent basis for the https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659 “ ” “ ” ’ . . tions of what it means to be Black or Jewish are put dissident minority s dissenting outlook is precisely that forward by fellow minority group members—persons they contest their group compatriots’ assessment of the who, in a very real sense, are authorized to tell the tale. importance or centrality of this supposedly core issue. Yet the story of dissident minorities is not solely one But what makes these issues important, for our pur- of disempowerment. Dissident minorities are often poses, is their phenomenological character—the role able to leverage their identity to amplify their voice they play in group discourse based on their perceived and exercise disproportionate influence. Theorists importance, without registering an opinion as to have long recognized that minority group members whether that view is ultimately warranted. are often accorded extra credibility when they express Most of the literature exploring “minorities within opinions atypical within their group, but that advance minorities” focuses on what we can call “internal

the interests or ideology of non-group members. This is minorities”: circumstances where a person is a member https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms amplified by social practices that—in certain circum- of a minority identity-category that is in turn nestled stances—accord value to minority voices as a legitim- inside another minority identity-category (Crenshaw ating tool for discourses about that group. But insofar 1989; Eisenberg and Spinner-Halev 2005; Pinto as this legitimating power of dissident minorities is 2015).3 The LGBT member of a small religious sect often predicated on the scarcity of influential voices would provide one such example. Then the question is from among their group, dissident minorities also often to what extent and by what means the internal minority, have the incentive to act as gatekeepers against other as a (sub)group, can make out rights claims against the group members, preserving exclusionary practices that larger minority group. This problem is what motivates, discourage their group-mates from participating as for example, Susan Moller Okin’s well-known article equals in political spaces. “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?,” and the many Part IV argues that these powers and vulnerabilities other interventions on the issue (Okin 1999; Shachar conjoin to create a distinctive political obligation upon 2000; Song 2005). By contrast, the category of “dissi- both dissident minorities and their interlocutors to dent minority” is predominantly an ideological, not avoid tokenization. By that I mean that dissident identity-based, marker. While an internal minority’s

, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , minorities cannot be treated or hold themselves out differentiated identity may track ideological cleavages, as representative members of their social group, at least it is nonetheless conceptually distinct from a dissident with regard to the questions towards which they are “dissident.” To the extent that proper democratic dia- logue requires the seeking out and consideration of 1 There also is the case of mercenary actors who take up dissident perspectives from a range of salient community mem- views they may not actually hold for opportunistic reasons. In general, much of the logic of this paper applies to them as well, if anything

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 bers (and many deliberative theorists endorse that view), it is improper for dissident minorities to suggest only more so. However, genuine believers present a more interesting , on on , case, so for the duration of the paper sincerity will be assumed. that non-members can discharge such deliberative obli- 2 Precise numbers are hard to nail down; much depends on the gations solely by speaking to them. The Black Repub- phrasing of polling questions. For example, one poll found that lican can speak and advocate for conservative policies 27% of Black voters described themselves as “conservative” but only

170.106.33.14 widely opposed by others in the African American 7% even “leaned” Republican (AP/NORC 2018). Polls of Jews more community, but she cannot justly present engagement frequently ask whether respondents identify as “pro-Israel” than as “ ”— with her views as sufficient to fulfill the obligation by Zionist a recent Gallup survey found that 95% of American Jews had a “favorable” view of Israel (Newport 2019)—but some com-

. IP address: address: IP . predominantly white social groups to engage with the menters stressed that this may exaggerate the level of “Zionist” Black community writ large, and neither can white identification because some respondents may have favorable atti- Americans use her for that purpose. tudes towards Israel but nonetheless be non- or anti-Zionist. The higher end prediction of anti-Zionist representation among Ameri- can Jews may rise to as much as 20%—a roughly similar proportion of American Jews as those who identify as Republican or who voted for DISSIDENT MINORITIES DEFINED Donald Trump in 2016 (Swanson 2019). 3 ’ “ “ ” An exception is Margaret Moore s chapter on Internal Minorities A dissident minority is a person who is him or herself and Indigenous Self-Determination,” which expressly considers the in the minority of a marginalized group with respect to case of “[p]hilosophical or ideological diversity” within groups https://www.cambridge.org/core some issue that the group takes to be important to its (Moore 2005, 273).

964 Downloaded from from Downloaded The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities

minority. If “internal minorities” raise the question of Jeremy Corbyn (Rosenberg 2017). White supremacist the rights of “women”4 within various cultural, social, groups have non-white members and supporters: a or national minority groups, the “dissident minority” Black New York City taxi driver spotted wearing a frame asks instead about the status of “feminists” Nazi armband told an incredulous reporter “Who says (who may or may not be women) within those groups you have to be white to be a National Socialist?” (assuming that the majority of that group is ideologic- (Gupta 2018; Politi 2014) Stretching back further into ally opposed to feminism). history, one finds Black opponents of the civil rights Certainly, these projects are not wholly disassociated movement and German Jewish supporters of Adolf from each other—women are, one suspects, most likely Hitler’s Nazi Party (Gordon 1984, 47; Schuyler 2001). to be raising ideological objections to putatively mis- These are contentious examples, but they illustrate a ogynist practices in their communities, including in larger point: if there is to be any value in “group” or their minority racial, religious, or cultural communities “identity politics” at all, merely noting that there is not

(Pinto 2015). But there are ideological divides within unanimity on a given issue does not alone suffice as a https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659

. . minority groups that do not appear to correspond to retort. Even sharply hierarchical social groups typically identity-based cleavages (as in both the Black conser- have internal dissent, though sometimes empowered vative or Jewish anti-Zionist cases, neither of which is traditionalists are good at masking or suppressing it particularly associated with or thought to generate such that the dissident opinions are largely obscured to from membership in subminority groupings). The ideo- external observers (Deveaux 2005). Instead of either logical frame, in turn, centers a different set of ques- ignoring the existence of the dissident faction or treat- tions than those typically pursued within the branch of ing it as though it obliterates any useful analysis of the multiculturalism literature considering internal group-qua-group normative theory, it is instead useful minorities. Problems surrounding secession, public to explore more closely what role these dissidents play accommodation, group autonomy, exemption, and in political debates and practices.

the ability to exit—issues often (though not always) In reality, it is likely that no member of any group— https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms framed as questions of “rights”—diminish in import- majority or minority—agrees with the consensus pos- ance. Instead, the problems posed by ideological dissi- ition of their group mates on each and every issue. dent minorities sound in more deliberative, epistemic, Werethecategoryof“dissident minority” to apply to and interpretive registers. If the internal minorities all of those cases, it would become a trivial and frame asks what substantive entitlements members of uninteresting concept. The caveat—that the relevant minorities (within minorities) ought to receive, the issue must be one that the group takes to be important dissident minorities project explores how a particular to its survival or equal standing—restricts the dissi- sort of minority—the ideological dissenter—is situated dent minority concept to a core set of cases. It is here within and can alter the trajectory of political discourse where both the debilitating and empowering dimen- about those entitlements. sions of dissident minority identity are most likely to On an ideological level, arguments around political manifest, and here where the distinctive political obli- rights or entitlements that take groups seriously often gations discussed in Part IV are most pressing in their seem at least superficially premised on perceived unan- demands. imity of the group—at least around certain key issues. Consider an alternative example: the anti-choice

, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , When a given policy or practice is objected to on the Jew. The Jewish community is overwhelmingly pro- grounds that it is harmful to a particular group—that it choice—a full 83% think abortion should be legal is “antisemitic” or “racist,” for example—it is easy to “always” or “in most cases” compared with 57% of respond by noting that “not all Jews” or “not all Americans generally (Masci 2018). So in that sense, the Blacks” agree with the assessment. The discourse of individual Jew who is avowedly opposed to reproduct- groups, insofar as it purports to speak on the entirety of ive rights certainly seems to be occupying a dissident

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 the groups, always carries this vulnerability. Yet falsi- posture compared with the Jewish community as a

fying this purported unanimity is a less compelling whole. Yet, phenomenologically, this sort of “dissent” , on on , rejoinder than it appears, in part because it proves far is not treated similarly to that of the anti-Zionist Jew. too much. Simply put, statements of the form “not all Anti-choice Jews are not usually referred to as “self- Xs believe Y” will be true for any group X of nontrivial hating” or “kapos.” While they certainly come in for

170.106.33.14 size regarding any issue Y of nontrivial contestability, criticism, and that criticism may even be made with where X is not defined by belief in Y. And “nontrivial specific reference to “Jewish values” or other appeals contestability,” it turns out, is an incredibly low bar to to community norms, they are not typically viewed as

. IP address: address: IP . meet. It is possible to find dissenting group members on traitors or imperiling any sort of cohesive narrative of a raft of issues and political choices that almost all solidaristic Jewish politics. This difference in the treat- observers might suspect would spark a unified front. ment of dissenters delineates a practical distinction Exit polls suggest one in eight American Muslims voted between “consensus issues”—those which “are under- for Donald Trump in 2016; a similar proportion of stood as … advancing the interests of the entire … British Jews identified as backers of Labour under community” and are “more likely to be ‘owned’ as community issues meriting group political mobilization,” versus “secondary” issues of marginal- 4 On grouping “women” into discussions of “minority” rights, see ization—those concerns issues faced by discrete subsets https://www.cambridge.org/core Moore (2005, 272 n.2). of a disadvantaged group that do not typically register

965 Downloaded from from Downloaded David Schraub

on the collective group agenda (Cohen 1999; Lopez non-group members (Marques and Paez 1994). A Bunyasi and Smith 2019). non-Jew who espouses anti-Zionism is not exactly The boundaries between “consensus” and “second- likely to be welcomed by the Jewish Zionist majority, ary” issues are not set in stone, and it is fair to wonder but their utterance may be viewed as expected or why any particular issue falls in one category versus the predictable—the sort of hostility (under the stipulated other. Secondary issues often are precisely those whose dominant perception of Zionism within the Jewish stakeholders are disdained or ostracized within the community, wherein Zionism is taken to be necessary broader group (e.g., the Black poor). By the same for the Jewish survival, equal standing, or both) that token, that which is said to be common to the entirety explains why the group must rally together in the first of the group might in reality reflect the interests of a place. A Jewish speaker who takes a substantively particular empowered class within the group. That the identical position may be viewed as far more danger- widespread Jewish consensus on abortion rights does ous—a traitor or fifth column, someone who has turned

not translate into the sort of contentious, often deeply against his or her own people. It may be assumed that https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659

. . hostile, treatment of those Jews carrying a dissident their opinions cannot possibly be genuine but rather view that one often sees directed towards anti-Zionist are the product of illicit pay-offs or rank opportunism, Jews might reflect a general minimization of Jewish and therefore they can be dismissed without further women’s interests seen as discrete, partial, and open to engagement. Slurs like “self-hating Jew,”“kapo,” debate. There is, in short, a very live intersectional “Uncle Tom,” or “house Negro” all have this effect: critique that might be leveled at the demarcation of they leverage the dissident minority’s ideological diver- issues deemed central to group survival or equality gence to present the dissident as contemptible, even versus issues relegated to the margins. treasonous.5 Consequently, these terms when deployed I do not mean to skirt these important debates, but I are sometimes viewed as even more explosive and do think they can be bracketed. The controversy over inflammatory even than the most vicious “generic”

whether an issue is, or should be deemed, a “consen- slurs targeting the group as a whole (such as the https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms sus” one for the group does not change the phenom- n-word) (Henderson 2003,69–70). Stephen Carter enology regarding how deviation along that issue is spoke from painful personal experience as a target treated. So going forward, I’ll leave aside the important when he wrote that “traitors are much worse than question of how an issue comes to be viewed as “con- adversaries; for every nation hates most the betrayer sensus” and instead stipulate that the cases explored from within” (Carter 1991, 102). below, Jewish anti-Zionism and Black conservatism, do Consider how this tracks Tommie Shelby’s(2005) indeed represent such issues. Using these as our argument for pragmatic Black solidarity centered examples, we can inquire into the distinctive status of around shared commitment to substantive equality dissident minorities generally: What are their distinct- given conditions of racial subordination. It prescribes ive powers and vulnerabilities, and what distinctive unity based on a set of shared political commitments— obligations accordingly flow to them? albeit ones that are designed to be thinly described and thereby broadly acceptable to most if not all members of the group—this is meant as an alternative to essen- DISTINCTIVE VULNERABILITY tializing notions of “thick” or “authentic” Blackness.

, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , Yet where this is the basis of political solidarity, it is There are two prominent and distinctive vulnerabilities highly likely that dissidents will be seen as especially dissident minorities often experience. The first is that treasonous: they will be seen as diverging not from a they are subject to disciplining exclusion and vitriol, cultural tradition but against the very project of group often including but not limited to having specific slurs equality. Shelby is clearly concerned with the possibility lobbed at them, designed to denigrate their equal that this political form of solidarity will itself congeal

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 political participation. The second is that their broader into something too thick, urging that agreement on

group identity is authoritatively constructed by their “basic principles and broad goals” must retain space , on on , peers in a fashion that may be alien or unrecognizable. for reasonable disagreement on “the precise content of We will consider each in turn. political action and policy initiatives.” But against the Certainly, any member of a minority group—regardless possibility that deep political disagreements will ultim-

170.106.33.14 of their political proclivities—may be targeted by a ately fracture the very sense of bondedness upon which broad array of stereotypes, insults, burdens, or other solidarity depends, he is left to plead for all to accept forms of discriminatory treatment that afflict the group any “good-faith efforts” at promoting racial equality –

. IP address: address: IP . as a whole. But dissident minorities may additionally with an open mind (247 48). face particular slurs or maltreatment specifically based on their dissenting status—and these attacks often will come from their fellow group members. In social psychology, the “black sheep” hypothesis posits that 5 It is notable that, in many cases, the historical persons these slurs group members have both more extreme positive and refer to would not be examples of dissident minorities. Kapos, for negative views of fellow members. That is, instead example, were not ideologically pro-Nazi Jews; they were forced to cooperate with Nazis under conditions of extreme duress. Nonethe- of just generally preferring members of their own group less, when used today as a slur these terms are often directed at to non-members, they both like the likeable ones dissident minorities who are cast not as tragically coerced but as https://www.cambridge.org/core and dislike dislikeable ones more than comparable willful traitors.

966 Downloaded from from Downloaded The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities

Open-mindedness certainly is a virtue, but friction ways in which a cultural code may be varied; beyond between the group majority and dissident minorities is them, one may run the risk of becoming an outcast or a probably not simply a matter of indulgence in illiberal convert, a marginal figure or a deserter of the tribe” vices. It is structural to the discrete social position of (Benhabib 2002, 15). It is probably true that all minor- marginalized groups. In his chapter “Internal Minor- ity group members experience, to one degree or ities and Their Rights,” Leslie Green observes that “the another, this form of alienation—particular insofar as circumstances of [minority] lives simply make it the stories told about them in service of dominating extremely prudent to strive for unity. Inasmuch as there agendas (i.e., they are thugs, barbaric, backwards, and is strength in numbers, the minority will seek to avoid so on) do not reflect the stories they tell about them- costly internal dissent” (Green 1995, 268). Visible frac- selves. But they can take solace—however small—in tures in public articulations of minority group prefer- knowing that such stories are inauthentic: they are ences and demands can weaken an already precarious imposed from the outside, not generated organically

bargaining position. More instinctually, “If one has from within the group itself. Dissident minorities, by https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659

. . learned to expect that one will be attacked from above, contrast, experience the distinctive pain of having their it is natural to fear that one may also be assaulted from experiences and outlook rejected from the inside, by below and to strike preemptively” (267). Conse- processes and narratives that they at least in some quently, Margaret Moore argues, “there is a tendency respects value and recognize as authoritative. for minority groups in the state to exaggerate the extent of solidarity behind their particular political program, because any dissent from it is likely to be interpreted by DISTINCTIVE POWER the majority group as a sign of weakness, as a sign that compromise is unnecessary, that the elites are not Alongside these vulnerabilities, however, dissident representative of everyone, and so on” (Moore 2005, minorities also possess distinctive—and significant—

273). This embellishment is likely to be paired with social power, wielding influence in majority society https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms concerted efforts to tamp down on or even extirpate far in excess of what one might predict from their what dissent does exist. And the more the broader numbers. Their membership in the minority group, minority group perceives itself to be marginalized or coupled with their public iconoclasm, may give them under threat, the more forceful its attempts to silence heightened credibility and legitimacy to speak on issues critical dissenters within the group are likely to be relevant to that group that exceeds that of both major- (Penic, Eleheroth, and Reicher 2016). ity and non-dissident minority speakers. This effect can Furthermore, it would not be fair to assume that be further compounded insofar as majority group act- attempts to intervene against dissident minority opin- ors sometimes have a well-intentioned practice of defer- ions could only be motivated by an unadorned repres- ring to minority voices, while being unable to reliably sive instinct curable by the cultivation of good liberal distinguish between dissident and non-dissident opin- values. The fear of opportunism is a genuine one; one ions. In some cases dissident minorities can ironically strategy for achieving status as a subordinated group leverage this deference to further facilitate the margin- member in a hierarchical society is “making oneself alization of the broader (non-dissident) minority pos- useful to the dominant group at the expense of one’s ition. ” , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , own group in exchange for personal benefits (Starkey Dating back at least to Hannah Arendt, and continu- 2015, 19). Individual incentives to “defect” from com- ing through contemporary scholars like Derrick Bell munal norms have real effects, and while monitoring and Nancy Leong, theorists have long recognized that sanctions and shaming can in turn police these defec- minority group members can gain significant power by tions, such sanctions can also squelch sincere expres- publicly endorsing dissident opinions atypical within sions of self-interest where the communal norm is not their group but popular with non-group members. They “

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 inclusive of particular subgroup experiences (White, will often be viewed and present themselves as inde-

Laird, and Allen 2014, 799). As Green puts it, “Insti- pendent” or “free thinkers,” perceptions that are often , on on , tutions and practices that promote solidarity, unanim- expressly linked to their supposedly exceptional status ity, and so on keep both majorities and internal within their group (think terms like “off the planta- minorities in check, whether that is their intention or tion”). In On the Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt

170.106.33.14 not” (Green 1995, 268). discusses the phenomenon of “exceptional Jews,” writ- There is a further vulnerability distinctive to the ing that Jews who fell into this category “knew quite dissident minority experience that may be less tangible, well that it was this very ambiguity—that they were ’ —

. IP address: address: IP . but is no less real: the lived experience of having one s Jews and yet presumably not like Jews which opened identity authoritatively constructed in a manner that the doors of society to them. If they desired this kind of casts one as a heretic or outsider. Seyla Benhabib intercourse, they tried, therefore, ‘to be and yet not to (2002, 15) observes that we are all “thrown” into be Jews’” (1994, 56). Under this framework, “Jews cultural, familial, linguistic, and other collective iden- were exhorted to become educated enough not to tities that we do not choose. Our efforts to converse behave like ordinary Jews, but they were, on the other with those narratives and create a life story that is hand, accepted only because they were Jews, because genuinely our own occur as an interaction with those of their foreign, exotic appeal” (57). The demand for narrative codes. While we always have options in how exceptional Jews came predominantly from non-Jews. https://www.cambridge.org/core we choose to tell our stories, “There are only so many They wanted Jews to be exemplars of a universal

967 Downloaded from from Downloaded David Schraub

humanity, which required that they simultaneously be political claim that hinges on an identity-association, distinctively Jewish (alien, other, so as to confirm that then the presence of dissident minorities can effectively humanity transcended such divides) and yet not Jewish “refute” a host of claims made by minority members (that is, not embodying the distinctive parochial and that rely on such an association. Instead, the presence tribalist concerns that supposedly characterized Jews). or encouragement of the dissident minority can act as a More recently, Nancy Leong has written of “racial form of moral licensing (“my Black friend says it’s (or identity) capitalism,” systems whereby society okay”; “not all Jews … .”), validating political behav- assigns value to out-group identity status (at least in iors or practices that are, by and large, repulsive to most certain circumstances) and members of said out-groups members of the minority group. are accordingly able to leverage their social position in Why are dissident minorities given this heightened order to reap social or political gains (Leong 2013). influence? I suggest it represents an idiosyncratic per- Preoccupation with “diversity,” in particular, “lends version of a perhaps laudable instinct to defer to out-

value to nonwhiteness, and white individuals and insti- groups regarding issues seen as central to their identity https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659

. . tutions capture the value of that nonwhiteness through or equal standing. In-group members, it seems prob- relationships with nonwhite individuals’” (Leong 2013, able, are likely to have weak knowledge of out-group 2176). For example, in seeking to defend against a opinions, and are poorly positioned to differentiate charge of racism, one often sees white actors appeal to between mainstream and outlier positions.6 Particu- their friendship with or (better yet) endorsement from larly in insular, ideologically homogenous circles, it is nonwhites who share their point of view (Bonilla-Silva possible that nonminorities may primarily or even 2010,57–58; Leong 2013,2178–82). In a similar vein, one solely associate with “dissident minorities,” and critic assailed Jewish Voice for Peace—asmallbut thereby gain a skewed perception of a given position’s prominent anti-Zionist Jewish organization—as existing relative popularity or marginality within the minority “largely to declare anyone accused of anti-Jewish bias group. Majority members of the organization who have

‘not guilty’ (with a Jewish accent)” (Haber 2008). People (or seek to cultivate) positive attitudes towards the https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms occupying this role gain power from being, in Arendt’s minority may systematically overstate the similarities terms, “exceptional.” Their influence stems from being between their own beliefs and those they ascribe to the members of the out-group, but simultaneously not like minority (as in the anti-Zionist who seeks to exhibit members of the out-group. affability towards Jews by overemphasizing the propor- In particular, members of minority groups who are tion who share his anti-Zionist outlook) (see Brady and willing to shield non-group members from claims being Sniderman 1985). Even if they are not misled into made by their minority compatriots can be and often believing that the dissident position actually represents are highly valued and therefore can in the right circum- a majority faction, they may nonetheless view the stances leverage considerable political power. In his matter as at the very least one of considerable disagree- “rules of racial standing,” Derrick Bell thus identifies ment—not a “consensus issue” at all. an exception to the general principle that Black testi- Consider, in this light, the case of the so-called “as-a- mony on racial issues is systematically derided or dis- Jew.” As-a-Jews are Jews who publicly leverage their missed by the white majority: a “[B]lack person who Jewish identity in order to undermine or discredit publicly disparages or criticizes other [B]lacks who are arguments or claims made by and associated with Jews ” — , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , speaking or acting in ways that upset whites is not writ large frequently, but not always, arguments dismissed but rather “granted ‘enhanced standing’” revolving around Zionism (the name comes from such (Bell 1992, 114). Recent research suggests that whites, persons’ tendency to preface statements with “As a Jew especially white conservatives, prefer Black conserva- … .”). Speaking of this set, David Hirsh writes tives who explicitly racialize their appeals over Blacks who adopt a still conservative, but deracialized, polit- This [anti-Zionist] minority often mobilizes its Jewish — “ ‘ ’

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 ical posture a phenomenon dubbed the Ben Carson identity, speaking loudly as a Jew . In doing so, it seeks

effect” (Leslie, Stout, and Tolbert 2019). While dissi- to erode and undermine the influence of the large majority , on on , dent minorities have a legitimate grievance in being of actual Jews in the name of an authentic, radical, dia- presumed to be motivated by careerism or disloyalty, it sporic and ethical, but largely self-constructed Judaism. also is simply true that in many cases “defection is The ‘as a Jew’ preface is directed at non-Jews. It tempts

170.106.33.14 rewarded” (Starkey 2015, 38). non-Jews to suspend their own political judgment as to Figures such as William H. Hastie thus bemoaned the what is, and what is not, antisemitic. The force of the ‘as a ’ … particular challenges posed by Black segregation sup- Jew preface is to bear witness against the other Jews . Antizionist Jews do not simply make their arguments and

. IP address: address: IP . porters to civil rights activists in the mid-twentieth century: their presence allowed whites to “validate their racism by pointing to like-minded [B]lacks” (Starkey 2015, 51). The Chicago Defender likewise 6 It is likely that individuals are more likely to be exposed to the views wrote mournfully of how white supremacists leveraged of like-minded people, thus gaining a more accurate appraisal of their Black supporters of school segregation: they take “our opinions compared with outgroups they have less contact with. The propensity of people toward homophily—liking and associating with own and hurls them against us to frustrate our plans and — ” those perceived as alike to them also suggests that majority group put us to the bad (56). If one recalls the naïve view, members will be overexposed to minority group members whose critiqued above, whereby “not all Xs believe Y” is expressed opinions are similar to their own. See Halberstam and https://www.cambridge.org/core thought to serve as a decisive rebuttal of any sort of Knight (2016).

968 Downloaded from from Downloaded The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities

adduce evidence; they mobilize their Jewishness to give aligned with the DCDM’s campaign. Yet it was actually themselves influence. (Hirsh 2018, 228) Jewish anti-Zionist members of the DCDM community who took the lead in promoting and defending the ban “ ” Hirsh seems correct that the target of the as a Jew (Chibbaro 2019). This struck many as surprising and framing is non-Jews, and that the appeal represents a perhaps inexplicable. Even if the deterred marchers leveraging of Jewish identity to validate and legitimize were not themselves anti-Zionist, they presumably political opinions. Given their small numbers among agreed with the DCDM on most other issues—hence Jews and negligible sway within mainstream Jewish why they wished to march. So why would the Jewish communal organizations, Jewish anti-Zionists have dis- anti-Zionists take up a position they knew would be proportionate influence outside of the Jewish commu- perceived as hostile and exclusionary towards many of nity, including in setting or validating the political their fellow Jews, including those sympathetic to at posture of predominantly non-Jewish organizations, least most of the DCDM’s agenda? associations, and social movements (224). The question The unique incentives—upon the DCDM as a whole “ ” https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659 of whether the as a Jew frame encourages non-Jews — . . and on its Jewish anti-Zionist members specifically “ ” to suspend their own political judgment is more created by out-group deference may offer an answer. — complex in many cases, it may rather encourage them Even restricted to those Jews who largely share the to indulge their preexisting political proclivities regard- DCDM’s politics (on matters like gentrification, queer ing Jews by giving them the backstop of Jewish affirm- liberation, police violence, and more), most potential ation. It takes from the tritely obvious point that there is Jewish Dyke March participants are still likely not anti- not unanimity among Jews (on questions of Zionism or Zionists.8 Hence, an influx of more Jews would prob- anything else), and extends it to the more contentious ably proportionally shift the march’s politics away from conclusion that therefore all opinions raised under a anti-Zionism and towards, if not philo-Zionism, then at Jewish banner are equally representative and effect- least neutrality. One could fairly rejoin that this effect —

ively cancel out negating the need for (or, nominally, applies to any group of potential entrants who agree https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms the coherence of) any deference. with an organization on most issues but disagree on Yet Hirsh is correct that in some cases dissident one. Yet insofar as dissident minorities gain distinctive minorities do gain considerable power when non- power from organizational deference around “their” minority individuals agree to suspend their own judg- issues, the arrival of fellow Jews disproportionately — ment and defer to members of the minority group at imperils the particular arena where anti-Zionist Jews least in those cases where the dissident minority is the are likely to hold the most institutional leverage and only (or principal) minority presence in a political influence. Without disparaging the sincerity of the arena dominated by members of the majority. This Jewish DCDM members’ ideological belief that the power can even incentivize dissident minorities to pro- Jewish Pride flag should be banned, it surely matters mote practices that have the effect of excluding their that the foreseeable effect of this position—deterring (non-dissident) group-mates. My claim is not that dis- other, non-dissident Jews from joining the march— sident minorities would oppose more members of their aligned with the dissident minority’s institutional “ ” minority group joining the dissident faction. Rather, interest in preserving their power and leverage with the hypothesis is that when dissident minorities are the the DCDM. primary representatives of a minority group within a ’ , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , In short, where a majoritarian organization s primary larger political organization, they may oppose entry of existing points of contact with a minority group are with their non-dissident compatriots even where those pro- its dissident members, organizational deference to the spective entrants would agree with most of the larger minority group may exacerbate the tendency towards ’ 7 organization s political goals. erecting hostile barriers to discouraging the broader A recent dispute regarding Jewish inclusion at the minority group from joining. In these circumstances, Chicago and DC “Dyke Marches”—more self-

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 deference accentuates both the stakes for and influence —

consciously left-wing alternatives to Pride marches of dissident minorities surrounding the prospect of , on on , provides an example. In 2017, the Chicago Dyke March other non-dissident minorities joining the group. On engendered controversy when it spontaneously ejected the one hand, where an organization exhibits defer- three Jewish marchers for waving a Jewish Pride flag, a ence, then the influx of non-dissident minorities (who

170.106.33.14 banner that organizers claimed was too reminiscent of also would benefit from such deference) is far more ’ the Israeli flag and so conflicted with the Dyke March s likely to actually alter the broader organizations’ orien- anti-Zionist commitments. This decision resulted in tation to issues seen as important to the minority group, withering criticism and claims of antisemitic exclusion.

. IP address: address: IP . and hence poses an even greater threat to the power Two years later, organizers of the DC Dyke March and influence of the dissident minorities already reignited the controversy by prohibiting Jewish Pride flags as a matter of policy. This decision was once again lambasted as creating a hostile and unwelcoming envir- onment for Jewish marchers who might otherwise be 8 Note that most of these other progressive stances are not “consen- sus issues” within the Jewish community and so Jews who take them up, even if they are in a numerical minority among other Jews, would not be “dissident minorities.” Observationally, there are certainly a 7 And, for that matter, the dissident minorities’“non-dissident” not-insignificant number of Jews who both are Zionist and hold https://www.cambridge.org/core goals. generally left-wing political views.

969 Downloaded from from Downloaded David Schraub

embedded in the group. And on the other hand, if Consider two poles that might exist in terms of how deference includes deferring to existing minority group we might think of distinctive obligations relating to members in the organization regarding how the organ- dissident minorities. Strong advocates of group solidar- ization ought to relate to the minority group in society ity may suggest that the dissident outlook can and as a whole (including on questions about welcoming or perhaps should be silenced or squelched. Dissident soliciting potential new members), then the dissident minorities would, under this strong solidarity view, minority faction may be especially well positioned to have an obligation to keep silent or even change their orient the group towards an exclusionary posture. It is outlook outright to correspond to the views of the the degree to which dissident minorities can use their group majority. On the other side, we can imagine a status to obstruct engagement with the broader group pure “pluralist” position,10 which effectively voids the that presages the problem of tokenization. dissident-minority category of any particular political obligations. Under this perspective, dissident minor- ities would essentially be viewed as yet another interest https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659 — . . group among many free to leverage whatever tools DISSIDENT MINORITIES AND THE and powers it has at its disposal in pursuit of its political ANTI-TOKENIZATION PRINCIPLE agenda. Both of these poles, however, are inadequate. I take ’ As we ve seen, dissident minorities occupy a distinctive as my starting point Seyla Benhabib’s principle of and in some ways unique status within political society. “Egalitarian reciprocity”: “Members of cultural, reli- They can be the targets of especial scorn or slurs gious, linguistic and other minorities must not, in virtue targeting their political participation. Yet they also of their membership status, be entitled to lesser degrees — often exercise outsized power able to gain political of civil, political, economic, and cultural rights than the influence far beyond what their numbers would predict majority” (Benhabib 2002, 19). This immediately sug-

by leveraging their identity to curry favor with non- gests that the strong solidarity position cannot be cor- https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms group members. These are descriptive properties of rect, for it would significantly diminish minority group dissident minorities. Do they generate any distinctive members’ rights to equal participation compared with political obligations? I conclude that one such obliga- the majority insofar as they were especially precluded tion, which I term the anti-tokenization principle, from taking up certain political positions. Note that— applies both to dissident minorities and to majority because we are focusing on distinctive obligations group members relating to dissident minorities: dissi- imposed upon dissident minorities—this does not speak dent minorities cannot hold themselves out, or be used, to any general obligation, shared by the majority and as valid mechanisms for discharging any general delib- minority alike, that may exist not to hold or promote erative obligation that might exist to consider the 9 wrong or harmful ideologies. Recall the example, perspective of the minority group writ large. This bemoaned byWilliam Hastie and theChicago Defender, obligation is narrower in scope than what some advo- of Black segregation supporters. It may be wrong to cates of group solidarity might desire; in particular, it support racial segregation, but under the view advanced insists that the dissident minority must be free to pub- here there cannot be a special blanket prohibition on licly advocate for its viewpoint even on issues where Black persons supporting segregation beyond the duties most of their compatriots feel that the dissident minor-

, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , that fall upon people of any race to come to the morally ity is betraying the group on matters central to their correct position regarding that issue. survival and equal standing as a group (recall that it is Minorities, as much as majorities, have the right to dissent along this axis that makes out a dissident minor- take dissident views in opposition to even the consensus ity in the first place). However, the anti-tokenization of their own community. One reason for this is straight- principle does impose practical limits on the manner in forward: the prevailing sentiment of historically which dissident minorities can leverage their identity to

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 oppressed minority groups can be wrong, and it can —

pursue their political ends and, by implication, it be wrong even regarding the dynamics of that group’s , on on , likewise levies a reflexive requirement on majorities own oppression. Randall Kennedy contends that not to tokenize dissident minority allies as a means of “Many prosecutors of alleged sellouts proceed as if evading an obligation to deliberate with and consider determining which policies best advance the interests

170.106.33.14 the perspective of the broader minority group. of ‘the [B]lack community’ is so easy that those who disagree with a supposed consensus are clearly either ” 9 stupid, negligent, psychopathological, or traitorous My focus on the distinctive political status of dissident minorities – . IP address: address: IP . means I do not consider other contexts where one might also see an (Kennedy 2008,72 73). But this confidence may paper obligation to engage with a minority group. For example, affirmative over legitimate differences of opinions or tactics. In action programs are sometimes justified on pluralist grounds: univer- many cases, positions or practices once thought to be sities are said to be obligated to create learning environments where diverse perspectives are considered. Should the presence of dissident minorities suffice to discharge that obligation? Insofar as classroom 10 By “pluralists,” I mean those who see “society as fractured into discussions are not oriented towards reaching an agreement regard- congeries of hundreds of small special interest groups, with incom- ing tangible collective action the anti-tokenization principle, at least pletely overlapping memberships, widely differing power bases, and as I lay it out here, does not neatly apply. Still, while I cannot pursue it a multitude of techniques for exercising influence on decisions salient here, how the anti-tokenization principle might be extended outside to them” (Polsby 1971, 118). The dissident minority would simply be https://www.cambridge.org/core the political context deserves further thought. another one of these small interest groups.

970 Downloaded from from Downloaded The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities

outrageous or absurd by a minority group eventually debate carry here too—how much worse off would we become legitimate subjects of debate or even conven- be if “Serving Two Masters,” a foundational text in tional wisdom within that group. Moreover, among Critical Race Theory, had never been published? More both minority and majority groups, debate and contest- broadly, equal political participation cannot be said to ation serve important functions as a means of testing, exist where members of minority groups are prevented strengthening, and refining ideas. Where individuals from publicly advocating their preferred policy prior- feel constrained or chilled from deviating from group ities in majoritarian spaces (spaces which, almost by consensus, damaging paralysis or ossification can definition, will often be decisive in terms of practically result, and the group may find itself unable to deliber- determining the outcomes of contested political issues). ate freely and creatively in the face of entrenched social To tell an anti-Zionist American Jew that they are free problems (Kennedy 2008,69–70; Loury 1995, 190). to advocate cutting U.S. aid to Israel in their synagogue, Michael Dawson thus identifies “[p]erhaps the most but not in Congress, is a nugatory concession: syn- obvious example of a nonliberal (some would say agogues do not set America’s foreign aid budget. More- https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659 ” . . antiliberal) political tradition within Black politics as over, as Shelby observes, in many cases the opportunity being “the consistent demand that individual African to “defect” away from minority-only groups and instead Americans take political stands that are perceived by organize with non-group members offers a potentially the community as not harming the Black community” important check on the group majority which might (Dawson 1995, 206). otherwise be tempted to impose too heavy or censorial A weaker version of the solidaristic position thus a hand on its dissident members (Shelby 2005, 128). might permit dissident minorities to air their opinions Once again, by specially constraining minority group within the group, but ask that they not project them in members’ ability to advocate politically to nonpublic or the public sphere or to outsiders (“don’t air dirty intragroup spaces in a manner that sees no obvious laundry”). For example, when Terry Smith, a Black parallel constraint imposed upon majority group mem-

law professor, defended in print (against Black student bers, this form of solidaristic demand fails Benhabib’s https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms protesters) a white colleague who had used the n-word condition of egalitarian reciprocity. repeatedly to illustrate a classroom example of unlaw- At this point, we might suspect that the pure pluralists ful harassment,11 one commenter responded by saying are correct, and there are no distinctive obligations that while “Professor Smith is entitled to his opinion relating to dissident minorities that could satisfy the about how educators should conduct themselves… egalitarian reciprocity criteria. I will suggest, however, having an opinion and putting that opinion in the that one such obligation—narrow, but not meaningless— newspaper are two different things” (Patrice 2018). can be identified. Dissident minorities are free to adopt The idea here seems to be that while it would have dissident views, and equally free to promote those been appropriate for Professor Smith to raise his con- views in public debate. What they cannot (or ought cerns privately within the Black community or in con- not) do is hold themselves out as a valid substitute for versation with Black students, he acted unjustifiably in engaging critically with the larger minority group on the going “public” with his views. Bell himself experienced issue under contestation. This is the anti-tokenization something similar upon publication of his famous principle. “Serving Two Masters” article—a searing critique of Some might immediately find an “anti-tokenization” ’ , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , the NAACP s desegregation strategy which, he argued, obligation odd, at least as imposed upon dissident ran roughshod over the interests of the very Black minorities. To instruct majorities not to tokenize minor- families it purported to advocate for (Bell 1976). The ities (dissident or otherwise) may sound intuitive backlash Bell endured, he later wrote, stemmed from enough. But being tokenized by others is generally his violation of “the unwritten civil rights Command- thought of as a negative experience. So to create an ment: Thou shalt not publicly criticize” (Bell 1980, ix). “obligation” upon dissident minorities to not willingly “

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 Yet this position is not satisfactory either. To begin, it be tokenized might sound like an obligation to not

is almost impossible to police. In many circumstances, willingly be abused.” Good advice, but who needs the , on on , spaces that might be thought of as “internal” or “pri- instruction? To answer that, consider why being token- vate” to a given group are nonetheless perfectly access- ized is generally a negative experience. Tokenization, ible to outsiders. Consider a Jewish anti-Zionist writer under my framework, involves the use of a minority

170.106.33.14 who pens a column defending her beliefs for the Jewish group member to further the project of a majority Daily Forward. Writing in the Forward is a means of group actor. In many if not most cases of tokenization, participating in an intracommunal Jewish conversation, the minority group member has no intrinsic interest in

. IP address: address: IP . but there is nonetheless no firewall preventing non-Jews this project; they are being used in a wholly instrumen- from reading the essay. And the losses inherent when tal or transactional fashion. The paradigm case might dissident ideas aren’t allowed into the fires of public be a student, one of the few members of her racial group at a predominantly white university, who finds her face plastered on all the college’s brochures. The 11 Smith told a reporter that he supported the use of the n-word in this “ college is using her in an attempt to discharge an type of classroom example and that Increasingly, we are dumbing obligation it has vis-à-vis the minority community down legal education for students. And increasingly they are ill- prepared to go out and represent clients. They will encounter this (e.g., to be a diverse institution). From the vantage of terminology and worse in practice. What will they do then?” Dudek the college, this attempt is malformed: spotlighting one https://www.cambridge.org/core (2018). of its few minority students should not suffice to

971 Downloaded from from Downloaded David Schraub

discharge the obligation; they are in fact trying to membership in this fashion presupposes the import- circumvent it. From the vantage of the student, it ance of incorporating this sort of “knowledge through rankles: she does not share the college’s ambition to lived experience” into the public debate, and that in (falsely) present itself as diverse, and she may feel that turn generates obligations to ensure that the duty to her presence at the university is primarily attributable secure perspectival inclusion is not circumvented. to their desire to use her in this way. In the paradigm In Inclusion and Democracy, Iris Marion Young case tokenization is, and is felt as, exploitation. distinguishes between attempts to foster diverse repre- Dissident minorities, however, may often find them- sentation along the axes of interests, opinions, and selves in a different posture. In many cases, dissident perspective. Interests relate to what is important or minorities will share the project of the majority actor affects the prospects of a given individual or group. who is tokenizing them. The anti-Zionist Jew independ- Opinions consist of the “principles, values, and prior- ently desires that anti-Zionism be more popular and ities held by a person as these bear on and condition his legitimated in the public sphere; to the extent a non- or her judgment” on policy ends. Perspective repre- https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659 “ . . Jew relies on her to further that ambition, it is a case of sents the manner in which differently positioned overlapping interest—more likely to be felt as collab- people have different experience, history, and social oration than exploitation. If one of the distinctive knowledge derived from that positioning” (Young powers of dissident minorities is to legitimize argu- 2002,134–37). For Young, only the last of these, per- ments and positions in majority spaces, dissident minor- spective, is entitled to special efforts to ensure it gains ities may often be tempted by tokenization as a potent representation and hearing in deliberative institutions— means of advancing their own ideological agenda. an opinion can be unjust and an interest may be illegit- But is this consensual and mutually desired use prop- imate, but there is no such thing as a wrong “perspec- erly called tokenization? Yes. This is clear once one tive” (146). zooms back out to the vantage of the broader minority Dissident minorities share the broader social position

group: from their position, a nonrepresentative sub- of their group compatriots—that is, share their perspec- https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms group still is being used to discharge an obligation to tive—but diverge along the axis of opinion. When engage with the group generally—that does not change dissident minorities either hold themselves out, or allow just because some individual members may be content themselves to be used as, substitutes for engagement with the arrangement. It is true that, as I’ll argue below, with the larger group, the effect is to substitute out the the tokenization of dissident minorities often converts incorporation of diverse perspectives for the incorpor- into the more readily recognizable exploitative form as ation of already-shared opinions. Instead of engaging soon as their opinions cease to align with their majority with the group as it is actually constituted, intergroup patrons. Nonetheless, the fact that dissident minorities engagement becomes a matter of “looking over the at least initially occupy a potentially collaborative crowd and picking out your friends”—and one can position vis-à-vis the phenomenon of tokenization nearly always find a “friend” in any group to endorse appears distinctive—further underscoring the analyt- the opinion one has already arrived at. At that point, ical importance of the category and how the distinctive the endeavor becomes superfluous—simply a means of features of dissident minorities cannot simply be sub- validating the opinions or positions one had already sumed under our general accounts of how to ethically taken prior to the attempt at cross-group engagement.

, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , relate to minority groups more broadly. Such acts of tokenization thus simultaneously assume Of course, that an anti-tokenization obligation would and render moot the obligation to incorporate and not be redundant does not suffice to justify it. I take as a fairly consider diverse perspectives in deliberation. given that in any deliberative institution there is some Understood in this way, the anti-tokenization obli- obligation to attempt to consult and engage with gation is distinctive to the case of dissident minorities. It diverse individuals affected by the matter under discus- emanates out of their specific political status and struc-

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 sion and that the result of this engagement must at least tural power to validate or give credence to particular

include the possibility of participants changing the positions or views under conditions of identity capital- , on on , attitudes or positions they entered with at the inception ism. Yet it does not fail Benhabib’s condition of “egali- of the dialogue (Young 2002, 38). Perhaps the validity tarian reciprocity.” It does not preclude dissident of this obligation is contentious. But dissident minor- minorities from engaging in political deliberation either

170.106.33.14 ities who seek to leverage their identities to gain internally within the group or in public settings, nor “enhanced standing” or influence in public debates does it specially burden them by taking away a political presuppose its existence. Their power emerges from resource otherwise available to either the majority or 12

. IP address: address: IP . some social agreement that having an endorsement or the majority of the minority. backing from members of these groups, in particular, is necessary or at least beneficial as a means of legitimat- ing the ultimately arrived-upon conclusion. Brando 12 Non-dissident minority members can certainly leverage their iden- Simeo Starkey observes that “Black skin, in race tity to validate certain political positions. But it would make little … sense for them to tokenize themselves—seek to obstruct the majority debates, is a commodity . When a [B]lack person — uses their racial identity to give authenticity to their from engaging with the minority group as a whole since by stipula- tion most other members of their group concur with them on the issue positions, or fails to challenge others who vicariously do under question. To the extent such tokenization occurs for nonideo- it for them, the use of that commodity affects the rest of logical reasons—e.g., material gain—it would also represent an https://www.cambridge.org/core the group” (Starkey 2015, 34). The leveraging of group ethical breach.

972 Downloaded from from Downloaded The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities

Canvassing the examples of dissident minority power position. But refusing tokenization sometimes may raised in the previous section, it is clear that while this mean losing political contests they might otherwise distinctive power does not have to take the form of win. That may well have been the case for the older tokenization, it very often does. The “Black friend” Black workers in the example above. Had they pressed enlisted to dispel a charge of racism, for instance, is their pro-segregation opinions in the Bureau’s meet- valuable not because his is one view considered along- ings, allowing the leadership to contend that retaining side his many peers who disagree. He is valuable pre- a segregated seating policy was in the interests of cisely as a means of avoiding having to seriously reckon or desired by both whites and (at least some) Blacks, it with the many peers who disagree. And the white obser- is perhaps likely that this position would have won out. ver who was motivated to seek out Black perspectives on However, even though tokenization might in some racism without a prior bias towards validating a particu- circumstances result in dissident minorities attaining lar, already-arrived at opinion,would—if he encoun- political successes, the relationship forged through

tered the dissident minority view at all—experience tokenization likely is not sufficiently robust so as to https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659

. . that opinion properly contextualized and proportionally persevere in cases where the dissident minority does situated alongside the broader set of opinions held in the publicly diverge from the opinions of their majority Black community. allies. To the contrary, when they are tokenized, dissi- So what would it look like in practice to refuse dent minorities may find that their opinions are only tokenization? Starkey offers an intriguing example valued transactionally—useful to the extent that they from 1942, when the federal Bureau of Engraving and advance the goals of their non-group-member patrons Printing considered ending its segregated cafeteria and no further. Where the perspective isn’t what’s seating policy. Most Black employees favored abolish- valued, dissident minorities will typically find that their ing the practice, but some older workers disagreed. The “enhanced standing” falls apart the moment they Bureau leadership hosted meetings regarding the express a view that diverges from their nominal allies.

future of the seating policy and, aware of the divergent Dissident minorities might contest this point. Specif- https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms preferences among the Black workers, intentionally ically, they might suggest that their enhanced standing selected older, pro-segregation Black workers to serve is not purely instrumental but rather reflects genuine as representatives at the meetings for the Black respect by majority-group members regarding their employee cohort writ large. But the selected represen- substantive contributions—respect that will carry over tatives refused to play their role—they instead relayed to cases where they do find themselves forced to chal- the outlook of the group majority favoring integration. lenge the dominant group. By showing themselves to be The Bureau eventually agreed to desegregate (Starkey “independent” or “exceptional,” the argument goes, 2015, 52). dissident minorities earn credit with the majority that This case is illustrative. The problem with the older they then can redeem in cases where they do find it Black workers is not (for our purposes) that they necessary to contest majority viewpoints. One often favored preserving the segregated seating arrange- hears assertions of this sort by dissident minorities ment. Nor is it that they did not sufficiently endeavor who agree with majority-group allies that claims of to keep their position secret from the agency’s white racism or antisemitism are exaggerated or deployed leadership. What would have been a problem is if they too freely. They contend that overzealous use of these —“ ”— , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , had allowed the Bureau to use them as cover for taking charges crying wolf permits observers to stop tak- a position opposed by the majority of the Black ing the claims seriously, thus debilitating the struggle employees.13 The very act of choosing a group of Black against “real” racism or “real” antisemitism (see workers as “representatives” indicates that the Bureau Schraub 2016). By contrast, the dissident minorities leadership understood that it needed Black perspec- who refrain from indulging in these false accusations tives to be represented in its deliberations in order for retain their credibility and so will be trusted if they do —

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 them to carry legitimacy. But it attempted to preload raise a racism or antisemitism claim even if that claim

the outcome of those deliberations by cherry-picking does cut against the case-specific preferences or judg- , on on , those Black workers it believed already agreed with the ments of the majority. position they favored. That typifies tokenization, and Unfortunately, in a great many cases the cynical the anti-tokenization principle obligates the older prediction wins out, and the dissident minority finds

170.106.33.14 Black workers to refuse to participate in it even though that the chips they thought they had amassed are it would have redounded to their benefit—for the same unable to be cashed. Consider the experience of the reason why it was wrong for the Bureau itself to attempt only Black Republican in the Senate, South Carolina

. IP address: address: IP . the circumvention itself. Senator Tim Scott. A reliable conservative vote, includ- It is thus the case that the anti-tokenization principle ing on judicial nominations, Senator Scott nonetheless can impose real political costs on dissident minorities. announced he would oppose the confirmation of True, they can hold and publicly advocate for their Thomas Farr for a seat on the Fourth Circuit (which includes South Carolina). Scott specifically highlighted Farr’s record on race, which included a history of

13 involvement on racial voter suppression efforts, as I do not think they necessarily had to go so far as to actively advocate on behalf of the desegregation decision—an alternative motivating his opposition. acceptable route would have been to refuse to serve as representa- In a sense, the stakes could not have been lower for https://www.cambridge.org/core tives and instead recommend other Black workers to take that role. Scott’s Republican colleagues. If Farr’s nomination was

973 Downloaded from from Downloaded David Schraub

withdrawn, his replacement would still be nominated by important questions of accommodation, carve-outs, President Trump and would almost certainly have and exit. Dissident minorities—differentiated from essentially identical conservative views and judicial the majority of their group not by identity but by ideology. Nonetheless, 31 Republican leaders, includ- ideology—raise different questions, which tend to ing his Senate predecessor Jim DeMint, attacked Sen- emerge more in the processes through which issues ator Scott as being complicit in a left-wing smear are deliberated than in the substantive outcomes ultim- campaign against Farr. “In these difficult days, when ately arrived at. Dissident minorities face genuine allegations of racism are carelessly, and all too points of vulnerability and exclusion and, rightly, can often deliberately, thrown about without foundation, push back against aggressive solidarity-based demands the result is not racial healing, but greater racial that insist they suppress or hide their opinions in def- polarization,” they wrote. “Joining with those who taunt erence to the group majority. Yet they also have oppor- every political opponent a ‘racist’ as a partisan political tunities to leverage their dissident status, offering tactic to destroy their reputations is not helpful to the themselves out as substitutes by which non-group mem- https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659 ” . . cause of reconciliation. Scott stood his ground, reply- bers can functionally evade their obligation to consider ing that “the authors of this letter choose to ignore … minority perspectives even as their political value facts, and instead implicate that I have been co-opted by trades directly upon the perceived obligation to engage the left and am incapable of my own decision making” with those groups. Members of the majority have an (Dumain 2019). Ultimately, though, Scott’s criticisms obligation to not tokenize dissident minorities in this had little sway among his Republican colleagues—only way. And while dissident minorities can rightly object outgoing Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona ended up joining to efforts seeking to squelch their right to equal par- Scott in opposition to Farr’s nomination. ticipation in the political realm, they nonetheless do The “enhanced standing” Scott normally enjoyed by have a parallel obligation to abjure the opportunities aligning with the Republican Party was a product of him offered by tokenization.

being (per Arendt) an “exceptional” member of his https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms minority group. But once he adopted (even temporar- ily) a critical posture towards his conservative allies, he REFERENCES ceased to be exceptional, and reverted to being just a “ AP/NORC (The Associated Press-National Opinion Research regular member of the Black community. If the earned “ ” ” ’ Center). 2018. The February 2018 AP-NORC Center Poll. http:// credit hypothesis held true, that shouldn t have mat- www.apnorc.org/PDFs/AP-NORC%20Omnibus%20February% tered—he should have been able to draw upon the well 202018/February%202018%20Custom%20Poll%20Topline_ of credibility to attain a favorable reception upon rais- FINAL.pdf. ing a challenge. Yet this is not what happened: once Arendt, Hannah. 1994. On the Origins of Totalitarianism. Orlando: Harvest. Scott stopped being exceptional, he was treated the Bell, Derrick. 1976. “Serving Two Masters: Integration Ideals and same as any other minority group member, and the Client Interests in School Desegregation Litigation.” Yale Law way the GOP treats minority group members who Journal 85: 470–517. challenge them is to dismiss them. While Scott’s patrons Bell, Derrick. 1980. Shades of Brown: New Perspectives on School in the Republican Party had been happy to hold him up Desegregation. New York: Teachers College Press. Bell, Derrick. 1992. Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence as proof that the GOP had Black supporters, they did of Racism. New York: Basic Books.

, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , not actually have any particular commitment to Benhabib, Seyla. 2002. The Claims of Cultures: Equality and Diversity engaging with the Black community—even nominal in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. “allies” in those communities—in any circumstance Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2010. Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and Racial Inequality in Contemporary America. Lanham, where it might generate challenge or change. MD: Rowman & Littlefield. This conclusion does not depend on viewing Scott as Brady, Henry E., and Paul M. Sniderman. 1985. “Attitude being disingenuous regarding his avowed positions. We Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79 (4): 1061–78.

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 can assume that he was earnest in generally concurring with his party’s view of racism and was equally earnest Carter, Stephen. 1991. Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby. , on on , New York: Basic Books. when he encountered a particular case he decided Chibbaro Jr., Lou. 2019. “Dyke March Leaders Deny Anti-Semitism required a different stance. But insofar as his opinions Allegation.” Washington Blade, June 7. https:// were valued by other conservatives not based on a www.washingtonblade.com/2019/06/07/dyke-march-leaders-deny-

170.106.33.14 genuine commitment to considering Black perspectives anti-semitism-allegation/. Cohen, Cathy J. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the on matters of anti-Black racism but rather as an oppor- Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago tunistic means of discharging that perceived obligation Press. “

. IP address: address: IP . by cherry-picking ideologically amenable representa- Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of tives, it is unsurprising that he would be cut loose once Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination ” he ceased to fill that role. Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139–67. Dawson, Michael C. 1995. “A Black Counterpublic? Economic *** Earthquakes, Racial Agenda(s), and Black Politics.” In The Black Public Sphere, ed. The Black Public Sphere Collective, 199–227. Much of the literature on internal minorities focuses Chicago: University of Chicago Press. — Deveaux, Monique. 2005. “A Deliberative Approach to Conflicts of on intersectional cases women in dissident religious Culture.” In Minorities within Minorities: Equality, Rights, and sects, LGBT members of racial minorities, and so Diversity, eds. Avigail Eisenberg and Jeff Spinner-Halev, 340–62. https://www.cambridge.org/core on. The issues raised in such cases center around New York: Cambridge University Press.

974 Downloaded from from Downloaded The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities

Dudek, Mitch. 2018. “DePaul Law Professor Cries Foul When Moore, Margaret. 2005. “Internal Minorities and Indigenous Self- Class Canceled after Use of N-word.” Chicago Sun-Times, Determination.” In Minorities within Minorities: Equality, Rights, April 3. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/4/3/18348615/depaul- and Diversity, eds. Avigail Eisenberg and Jeff Spinner-Halev, law-professor-cries-foul-when-class-canceled-after-use-of-n 271–93. New York: Cambridge University Press. -word. Newport, Frank. 2019. “American Jews, Politics and Israel.” Gallup, Dumain, Emma. 2019. “SC’s Tim Scott Still Opposes Thomas Farr, August 27. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling- Has Sharp Words for Conservative Critics.” McClatchy, January matters/265898/american-jews-politics-israel.aspx. 30. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/ Okin, Susan Moller. 1999. “Is Multiculturalsm Bad for Women?” congress/article225279815.html. In Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? eds. Joshua Cohen, Eisenberg, Avigail & Jeff Spinner-Halev. 2005. Minorities within Matthew Howard, and Martha C. Nussbaum, 7–24. Princeton, NJ: Minorities: Equality, Rights, and Diversity. New York: Cambridge Princeton University Press. University Press. Patrice, Joe. 2018. “You Actually Won’t Believe Who Is Suing Gordon, Sarah Ann. 1984. Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish DePaul Law School For Discrimination.” Above the Law, March Question.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2. https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/you-actually-wont-believe- Green, Leslie. 1995. “Internal Minorities and Their Rights.” In The who-is-suing-depaul-law-school-for-discrimination/.

Rights of Minority Cultures, ed. Will Kymlicka, 257–72. Oxford: Pinto, Meital. 2015. “The Right to Culture, the Right to Dispute, and https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659

. . Oxford University Press. the Right to Exclude: A New Perspective on Minorities within Gupta, Arun. 2018. “Why Young Men of Color Are Joining White- Minorities.” Ratio Juris 28 (4): 521–39. Supremacist Groups.” Daily Beast, September 6. https:// Penic, Sandra, Guy Elcheroth, and Stephen Reicher. 2016. “Can www.thedailybeast.com/why-young-men-of-color-are-joining- Patriots Be Critical after a Nationalist War? The Struggle between white-supremacist-groups. Recognition and Marginalization of Dissenting Voices.” Political Haber, Jon. 2008. “A Divestment Fiasco.” Jerusalem Post, June 21. Psychology 37 (4): 481–96. https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/A- Politi, Daniel. 2014. “Suspended NYC Cabbie: ‘I’m A National divestment-fiasco. Socialist—What You Guys Call A Nazi.’” Slate, May 17, 2014. Halberstam, Yosh, and Brian Knight. 2016. “Homophily, Group https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/05/gabriel-diaz- Size, and the Diffusion of Political Information in Social suspended-nyc-cab-driver-says-he-s-a-nazi.html. Networks: Evidence from Twitter.” Journal of Public Economics Polsby, Nelson. 1971. Community Power and Political Theory. 143: 73–88. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Henderson, Anita. 2003. “What’s in a Slur?” American Speech 78 (1): Rich, Dave. 2018. The Left’s Jewish Problem. London: Biteback. https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms 52–74. Rosenberg, Yair. 2017. “Why Just 13 Percent of British Jews Say Hirsh, David. 2018. Contemporary Left Antisemitism. London: They Will Vote For Labour in the General Election.” Tablet Routledge. Magazine, May 30, 2017. https://www.tabletmag.com/ Kennedy, Randall. 2008. Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal. scroll/236063/why-just-13-percent-of-british-jews-say-they-will- New York: Vintage. vote-for-labour-in-the-general-election. Knowles, Hannah. 2019. “Candace Owens Clashes with Fellow Schraub, David. 2016. “Playing with Cards: Discrimination Claims Witness at Congressional Hearing on White Supremacy.” and the Charge of Bad Faith.” Social Theory and Practice 42 (2): Washington Post, September 20. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ 285–303. politics/2019/09/21/candace-owens-clashes-with-fellow-witness- Schulyer, George. 2001. “The Case against the Civil Rights Bill congressional-hearing-white-supremacy/. (1963).” In Rac(e)ing to the Right: Selected Essays of George Leong, Nancy. 2013. “Racial Capitalism.” Harvard Law Review 126: S. Schuyler, ed. Jeffrey B. Leak, 97–103. Knoxville: University of 2152–226 Tennessee Press. Leslie, Gregory John, Christopher T. Stout, and Naomi Tolbert. Shachar, Ayelet. 2000. “On Citizenship and Multicultural 2019. “The Ben Carson Effect: Do Voters Prefer Racialized or Vulnerability.” Political Theory 28 (1): 64–89. Deracialized Black Conservatives?” Social Science Research 78: Shelby, Tommie. 2005. We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical 71–81. Foundations of Black Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Loury, Glenn C. 1995. One by One from the Inside Out: Essays and University Press. Reviews on Race and Responsibility in America. New York: Free Song, Sarah. 2005. “Majority Norms, Multiculturalism, and Gender

, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at at available use, of terms Core Cambridge the to subject , Press. Equality.” American Political Science Review 99 (4): 473–89. Lopez Bunyasi, Tehama, and Candis Watts Smith. 2019. “Do All Starkey, Brandon Simeo. 2015. In Defense of Uncle Tom: Why Blacks Black Lives Matter Equally to Black People? Respectability Must Police Racial Loyalty. New York: Cambridge University Politics and the Limitations of Linked Fate.” Journal of Race, Press. Ethnicity, and Politics 4 (1): 180–215. Swanson, Joel. 2019. “A Lot More Jews Are Anti-Zionists than You Marques, José M., and Dario Paez. 1994. “The ‘Black Sheep Effect’: Think.” Forward, August 30. https://forward.com/opinion/430535/ Social Categorization, Rejection of Ingroup Deviates, and a-lot-more-jews-are-anti-zionists-than-you-think/. ” “

27 Sep 2021 at 01:58:29 at 2021 Sep 27 Perception of Group Variability. European Review of Social White, Ismail K., Chryl N. Laird, and Troy D. Allen. 2014. Selling Psychology 5 (1): 37–68. Out? The Politics of Navigating Conflicts between Racial Group , on on , Masci, David. 2018. “American religious groups vary widely in their Interest and Self-interest.” American Political Science Review 108 views of abortion.” Pew Research, January 22. https:// (4): 783–800. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious- Young, Iris Marion. 2002. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford

groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/. University Press.

170.106.33.14

. IP address: address: IP . https://www.cambridge.org/core

975 Downloaded from from Downloaded