Sociologists have widely criticized color blindness discourse for allowing people to ignore and refuse that systemic forms of racial discrimination and oppression continue to be enforced today through the public and private sectors.

Color blindness, or color-blind theory, is the racial and sociological ideology that attempts to defeat racial discrimination by stressing the importance of the individual and disregard for that individual’s race, culture and ethnicity as relevant factors in creating and maintaining an equal environment.

In more simplistic terms, this ideology supports the argument that racial inequality no longer exists and that there is equal opportunity for all people. This results in commonly heard phrases like: I don’t see race or color. We’re all just human. People are just people. I see the content of someone’s character, not their skin.

In theory and in practice, this thought process tries to dismantle discrimination by choosing to consciously ignore differences in race, color, culture and ethnicity as relevant factors in one’s decision making for or against any individual(s). Sociologists have widely criticized color blindness discourse for allowing people to ignore and refuse that systemic forms of racial discrimination and oppression continue to be enforced today.

Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva conducted empirical research studies to analyze the types of dialogue and arguments created by people to indirectly and subtly justify racial inequality in his ground-breaking 2003 case study in “Racism without Racists.” Through his analysis he proposes the central framework for color-blind racism, including its four frames:

Abstract liberalism Naturalization Cultural racism Minimization of racism

Abstract liberalism is considered the most important frame by Bonilla-Silva because it forms the foundation of color-blindness. He explains that abstraction of liberalism is the most difficult frame to comprehend because it interferes with American’s “conceived notions” of individualism, a product of classical liberalism’s influence and transformation into the modern day American ideals of freedom and fairness for everyone (Think The Declaration of Independence’s “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all”). Bonilla-Silva says it is significant to remember two of the most prominent fathers of modern thought and discourse, philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire, displayed clear attitudes of racial-bias and inferiority of blacks in their works. Even John Stuart Mills, the founding father of modern liberalism “supported slavery in antiquity and in certain 19th-century colonial situations.”

Bonilla-Silva stresses the point that modernity, liberalism and racial exclusion coexisted as members of the same historical movement. In an analysis of interviews with college students and DAS respondents, Bonilla-Silva contextualizes race-related problems in the language of liberalism to portray how white respondents — young and old — appear reasonable and moral in responses, while at the same time “opposing almost all practical approaches to deal with de facto racial inequality.” The abstract liberalism frame shows that arguments made by many of the white participants were based on the freedom of choice by the individual as a justification for opposing social policies that forcefully try to destroy racial inequality (ex: affirmative action).

“And behind the idea of people having the right of making their own ‘choices’ lays the fallacy of racial pluralism — the false assumption that all racial groups have the same power in the American [republic].”

The second frame, naturalization, is the process in which whites tend to discredit racially-motivated or racist events and actions, including residential and educational segregation, by suggesting they are natural phenomenons. Bonilla-Silva tries to decode the commonly used phrase “that’s the way it is,” or the hefty assumption made by 50% of his white respondents that order in the social world is natural, especially in regards to racial matters. He argues that this is the delusional/illusional component which drives naturalization. This concept was used by respondents “when discussing school or neighborhood matters to explain the limited contact between whites and minorities, or to rationalize whites’ preferences for whites as significant others.” Social scientists like Bonilla-Silva and other experts have documented how racial considerations, contrary to the beliefs of white subjects in this case study, do indeed impact residential and school segregation, friendships and attraction.

The cultural racism frame “relies on culturally based arguments…to explain the standing of minorities in society.” The famous historical example of this comes from the Jim Crow era during slavery when the primary reasoning “for excluding racial minorities was their presumed biological inferiority.” Bonilla-Silva claims that these biological views have been replaced by cultural views that are “just as effective” in preserving the racial status quo. “The essence of the American version of this frame is ‘blaming the victim,’ arguing that minorities’ standing is a product of their lack of effort, loose family organization, and inappropriate values.”

And lastly, minimization of racism is the final frame, which suggests discrimination is no longer the main factor impacting minorities’ chances and opportunities in life (ex: ‘It’s better now than in the past’). Minimization of racism equates to the notions that one is hypersensitive or “playing the race card” when believing a form of racial discrimination exists.

After analyzing the transcripts of his respondent’s arguments that attempt to explain a variety of racial issues in America, Bonilla-Silva concludes that these four central and interchangeable frames build off of one another to create a formidable wall which allows the white respondents in his study to mix-and-match between the four frames “as they see fit” in a “seemingly nonracial way of stating their racial views without appearing irrational or rabidly racist.”