Race and the Invisible Hand: How White Networks Exclude Black Men from Blue-Collar Jobs

Since so many conservatives think that racism no longer exists, the market will cure all evils, and blacks do poorly because of individual rather than social failures, Dr. Royster puts these ideas to the test. She interviews 25 white men and 25 black men who studied the same vocational courses at the same high school to see if they did just as well in the marketplace. Though the black men get just as good grades and attend classes just as much, their individual initiative does not explain why their white counterparts consistently found jobs easier, were paid more, worked in fields in which they prepared, and were just generally better off.So many people nowadays feel that racism is so nebulous in the post-civil rights era that surely it must not exist. Dr. Royster explodes this idea and gives American racism a real face. In this study, white employers would forgive white males with criminal backgrounds but condemn black men in the same situation. White teachers gave black males verbal support but they only went out of their way to find actual jobs for white, male students. White males had tons of contacts who could find them jobs, no questions asked; while black men were consistently asked to prove their skills and proceed through bureaucracy. White male job applicants met white employers in predominantly-white parks, golf courses, churches, and many other places where few black males would have access. White employers would rather tell white applicants "You didn't get hired due to affirmative action" rather than "You were far from the most qualified person." The only successful black in this study said he has to constantly grin and bow and that white co-workers purposely used racist epithets hoping to make him explode and get fired. Though white males unanimously agreed that "who you know" gets you into doors, they never once realize that they know more well-off peopole than black men. In addition, though white males consistently fared better than their black counterparts, white employers would continually imply that they must give preferential treatment to them to counteract affirmative action policies.This book is well-written and sophisticated, though I think lay readers will be able to understand it generally. This book doesn't become overly descriptive and fall into simple narrative. The first individual interviewee discussed isn't brought up until page 66 of this 200-paged book.Dr. Royster stated that she originally intended to interview black and white females as well, but didn't due to time constraints and a lack of an interviewing pool. Thus, this is men's studies by default. Still, since the trades mentioned here are predominantly male, this exclusion makes sense. In fact, Dr. Royster suggests that black males have limited contacts because they can only go to similarly-classed black women, rather than the powerful white male mentors that young white males had. This was a fascinating gender politic.Dr. Royster describes herself as "a very, light-skinned African American." Hence, white subjects revealed things to her that she is sure they wouldn't have revealed to a phenotypically black researcher. This undercover interviewing is fascinating, but lead to truthful and accurate results.Though a new scholar, Dr. Royster critiques the most famous living black sociologist, Dr. W.J. Wilson, yet he even has to admit that her research is excellent. (See the back cover of the book.)I wasn't expecting this book to be a sociological study. I thought it would be a history of racism in labor movements and unions. Still, I was not displeased by the results. I am a better person for having found and read this text. Big applause to Dr. Royster.

No pencil markings, no highlight markings, just a couple of bent pages and bent cover but its not the end of the world. Would recommend this seller to anyone/

I should have read the reviews. Boring book. Not for intellectual readers. I would not recommend this book. Could have found a better book to read.

In examining the seeming intractability of race and exclusionary tactics of white-male social networks, sociologist, Deirdre A. Royster asks and answers five fundamental questions that serve as a foundation for substantive discussions and analysis, among academic and non-academic audiences alike. Her questions are: (1) What happens when whites and blacks share a track placement, the same teachers, and the same classrooms? (2) Can desegregated institutions, in this post-civil rights era, provide equal foundations and assistance for blacks and whites? (3) Does the problem of embeddedness - in this case, historically segregated job networks - stifle the emergence of cross-racial linkage mechanisms and networks beyond schools? (4) Or does the post-Civil Rights era provide a new, color-blind labor market in which blacks show signs of work-readiness and achievement succeed on a par with white peers in terms of initial employment outcomes? (5) Finally, are black students, as the racial deficits theory suggests, lacking something that should make them less desirable as workers than their white peers? Of her questions, I find number one of considerable interest, for it illustrates what are some outcomes even when the playing field is leveled.In asking such questions Royster lays a foundation that challenges conventional wisdom as it relates to African Americans and their economic, political, and social achievements. Not unlike a 1992 Atlanta newspaper article by Leonard Steinhorn, wherein he writes, "rather than asking why blacks have achieved so little, it is more appropriate to ask how blacks achieved so much given the odds against them," Royster begins her work by examining the social networks of her African American and American Anglo male respondents; networks that allow for successful school-to-work transitions for white males, but which are lacking in African American blue-collar social circles. Historically, with fewer and fewer African American men in quality blue-collar jobs, coupled with the lack of social networks, young black males seeking entrée into the sector were not met with a hand up, but a proverbial boot in the face.Examining the landscape of African American unemployment, coupled with massive deindustrialization in many American cities, I conclude that not only do African American males face seemingly entrenched "stigmatization" as articulated by Glenn Loury in his work "The Anatomy of Racial Inequality", they are also victims of a mistaken belief among white males that if an African American male has a particular job the Anglo male covets, it was not earned by merit alone, but by means unavailable to white males, i.e. affirmative action. Recognizing this faulty logic among many white males is particularly telling in that they seem to ignore historical impediments, i.e. deadly threats and actual death faced by African Americans in general and African American males in particular seeking quality employment. Even among black and white males of like educational, social, and economic standing, as proffered by Royster, white males persist in asserting that blacks are undeserving of their position, which some white males argue is due to legislative intervention.Partially employing Granovetter's theory of the strength of weak ties, Royster, shows how white males partake in a system often unnoticed by black males and never given a second thought by white males themselves. So much so, that white males do not observe that even when they engage in "typical `boys will be boys behavior'," white males are not without access to a web of networks. She goes on to write, "whereas white men can be thought of as second-chance kids, black men's opportunities were so fragile that most could not have recovered from even the relatively insignificant mishaps that white men report in passing." Such comments in "passing" by Royster's white male respondents illustrates their lack of an acute understanding of their "white-skin privilege" as articulated by Peggy McIntosh and their membership within a social structure/network that affords many opportunities for "mishaps" to be routinely accepted by both peers and potential employers. Mishaps that often leaves the African American male possessing a criminal record and effectively barred from potentially lucrative employment.Royster does a very good job of writing in an approachable style for non-academics and in a way that is intellectually redeeming for the hardcore academic mind. While some researchers may find fault with her "passing" as white to gather data, little can be said against both its utility and effectiveness of moving into a comfort zone with her respondents, such that her interviews with white males prove both disturbing and enlightening. As she states at the outset, "because I can pass for white, I have often overheard conversations among whites to which people of color are not ordinarily privy," Royster understands the risks, but proceeds and produces a masterful work.Overall, Royster has provided a work that, as William Julius Wilson noted, "will be widely read and cited." For this work and the ideas generated, this reviewer applauds the author's efforts and contributions.

This is an interesting but flawed study. The author wishes to prove that informal social networks among Whites give them an advantage over Blacks who lack those networks in securing blue-collar jobs. This seems to be a common sense observation and I have no doubt that it is true. However to buttress this theory, the author utilizes interviews of only 38 students from ONE trade school in Baltimore. How this can be extrapolated for the entire country is beyond me. The time period for this study in Baltimore also occurred during a period of economic downturn.The author also has a particular axe to grind. Her "study" is merely a polemical cheer for affirmative action. Rather than address the structural restraints on the economy such as regulations and taxes, she proposes instead programs that would restrain the effectiveness of informal networks and opts for an affirmative action program of coerced mandates and governmental control. This can only result in conditions going from bad to worse.