When denial isn’t enough
Racism, complicity, and moves to innocence in physics
Back in 2020, I described physics as a culture of denial. By this, I meant that denial — the psychological defense mechanism — is at the core of how the physicist (especially the white male physicist) constructs his physics identity.
Like the alcoholic who has convinced himself he doesn’t have a drinking problem even in the face of hospitalization or multiple DUIs, core to the physicist’s fragile self-image is the unconscious (and sometimes conscious) denial of aspects of himself that he fears the most. Above all is denial of his own subjectivity. To become a physicist means to place oneself above bias and the need for introspection — to subjugate one’s human nature to the rigors of logic, mathematics, statistics, and precise experimentation in order to uncover the foundational truths of the universe — so the physicist’s humanity becomes that which must be expunged. But since severing one’s mind from the human condition is, of course, impossible (and a recipe for bad science) the white male physicist must defensively deny his subjectivity so as to protect his psyche. In doing so, he projects an image of himself as unbiased and above scientific and social reproach. He can throw temper tantrums in the lab and get away with it. But since his subjectivity can only be denied and repressed — never actually destroyed — he instead projects it outward onto others. In a physics culture where subjectivity is feared and unspeakable, the racialized, feminized, and/or queer physicist bears not just her own subjectivity but that projected onto her by the white man’s mental gymnastics. She can never aspire to white empiricism because others’ non-empiricism is displaced onto her.
Of course, other undesirable aspects of physics culture, such as rampant workaholism and overt racism, are similarly denied and displaced. The end result is that physics paradoxically presents itself as having no culture, thus perpetually foreclosing to itself the very introspection needed to disprove the fabrications of its own denial.
Denial works as a strategy until it doesn’t. Sooner or later a PR-threatening racism scandal or a status-quo-disrupting social movement makes the reality of oppression in physics spaces seem undeniable. This article picks up where my previous writing left off, asking the question — what happens when denial alone no longer works?
Moves to innocence
In 1998, Janet Mawhinney coined the term “moves to innocence” in her master’s thesis to characterize the ways white people in supposedly antiracist settings maintained and enacted racial privilege. She defines moves to innocence as “strategies to remove involvement in and culpability for systems of domination.” In other words, moves to innocence are bulwarks employed by white people when patterns or systems of oppression and domination can no longer simply be ignored or denied to mitigate or deflect blame and accountability from oneself and one’s community. (The term has since been extended to analyze, for instance, how white settlers in settler-colonial states distance themselves from active processes of colonialism or how white women reference their social class to deflect accusations of white complicity.)
White-dominated physics culture uses much the same tactics to avoid facing the stark implications of what decolonization and abolition of oppression in physics would truly look like. I thus conceptualize moves to innocence as including both those that protecting individual physicists (possibly at the expense of others) and as those that protect the solidarity of physics as a whole. While these two functions may appear at cross-purposes, they usually end up functioning together to deflect accountability at any level; collectively, moves to innocence don’t just react to isolated instances of criticism but create a wall that disincentivizes challenging systems or behavior on any level.
I like to visualize physics culture — and its microcosm, the identity of the white male physicist — as a multi-layered suit of armor designed to protect the physicist’s (and discipline’s collective) psyche. The first, passive line of defense is complete denial, which includes the characterization of physics as apolitical and acultural and thus above the irrationalities of “isms” and human nature. The second line of defense is a qualified denial, acknowledging that there may be isolated problems but displacing them outside of physics (“the real problem is engineering”) or onto a small fraction of individuals within (whack-a-mole politics). The final line of defense — what I am referring to by the term “moves to innocence” — comprises discourse moves that seek to leverage one’s own positionality to distance oneself or the discipline of physics from accountability without necessarily denying actions.
(Incidentally, it is moves to innocence like these that cause “progressive” white women in physics to often be responsible for some of the most devastating acts of racism I have observed in physics. As a multiply-marginalized white person, my first two lines of defense carry less weight yet I will tend to be perceived as more vulnerable and therefore trustworthy. Thus when my defensiveness does invariably kick in, it will often be a betrayal from a position of trust which is doubly painful.)
Some examples of moves to innocence
I have many examples of moves to innocence by physicists I routinely observe in mind. Doing each justice is beyond the scope of space here — each deserves its own article — but here are a few examples to get started:
Deflecting responsibility off of self for challenging oppressive patterns in physics
Using one’s own position as a member of a DE&I committee (etc.) to characterize the problem as primarily with other physicists
“As an undergrad/grad student/postdoc/new hire I don’t have sufficient social capital to be part of the solution.” (Structural barriers to action based on career status are real. Strategically choosing battles is wise; habitually deferring all of them for an indefinite point in the future is a move to innocence.)
Using ideas of identity and multiculturalism to reduce one’s own culpability. (“I was raised in X country/work in a diverse collaboration/had a female PhD advisor so I’m not the problem.”)
Deflecting responsibility off of physics in general
Seeking to defer action until more data is collected (then moving the goalposts)
Conflating oppression with numerical underrepresentation, thus discounting visceral oppression against groups that may not be obviously underrepresented (e.g. Asian American women) or involving identities that aren’t statistically legible (e.g. LGBTQ+ physicists)
Declaring diversity, equity, justice, ethics, etc. to be issues outside the scope of physics, more appropriately addressed by the humanities
Citing the sanctity of academic freedom of PI’s as reason not to confront sexism and racism in labs
Focusing on the negative effects of white/male supremacy on workforce development, thus implicitly making physics culture the victim rather than the perpetrator
