Racism, at its core, traces its roots to beliefs such as race essentialism. Race essentialism—the idea that races possess inherent, fixed traits—is often used as a tool of modern-day racism.
Empirical research indicates that these beliefs are associated with stronger racial bias. A recent study demonstrates that racial essentialism is linked to stronger racial bias and rigid categorization of people (Ho, Roberts, & Gelman, 2015). Further studies likewise show that individuals with high racial essentialism are more likely to stereotype others and view race as fixed and determinative of behavior.
It is, however, perplexing that this logic is unevenly distributed across races. In certain cases, skin color assumes a defining role. This is evident when a person of color commits a crime. For example, when a Black man commits a crime, the racial essentialist approach used to interpret his actions is tied to his skin color.
In such cases, skin color overextends its role, functioning as a lens through which not only the individual’s behavior is interpreted, but also that of other Black individuals. The central concern, however, is that this same logic is not applied to individuals of European descent.
For instance, when a white man commits a crime, a racial essentialist approach is seldom used to interpret his actions. Instead, a more individualized explanation is adopted. If a white man steals, it is because he is a miscreant. When a Black man steals, however, the act is often interpreted as being tied to his race.
The issue with this approach is that, in the white man’s case, a humanistic and individualized interpretation is applied—one that acknowledges that anyone can be a miscreant. His race is not used as a lens through which other white men are judged. In this sense, he is a human first before he is white, and his race is irrelevant to the type of person he is.
In contrast, the Black man is Black before he is human, and his race is taken as the defining explanation for the type of person he is.
This raises the question of what causes such disparity. I argue that it can be understood through what I define as the concept of:
HUMAN FLUIDITY PRIVILEGE
Human Fluidity Privilege describes a structural asymmetry in social perception whereby members of dominant groups are granted the latitude to embody multiple, even contradictory, identities—such as being moral or flawed, exceptional or ordinary—without these traits being generalized to their group. In contrast, marginalized individuals are frequently denied this fluidity, as their actions and identities are interpreted through rigid, pre-existing stereotypes, effectively fixing them into static social categories and restricting the full recognition of their humanity.
I argue that this concept explains the disparity in social perception even within essentialist belief systems. Given that such disparity exists, it becomes evident that there are identifiable beneficiaries—namely, those whose identities are not reduced to singular interpretations.
This suggests that race essentialism produces racial bias that disproportionately targets people of color, reinforcing its role as a tool of modern-day racism.
When one group is afforded the ability to embody multiple identities and fully exercise their humanity while another is denied that same opportunity, it becomes evident why racism persists.
This leads to one fundamental question: Who is human, and who is the other?
THE HUMAN AND THE “OTHER”
Having established the above, it can be argued that these beliefs create exclusionary structures in the recognition and exercise of humanity.
This manifests in such a way that the privilege of human fluidity is afforded to only a few, while others are confined to fixed identities.
Consequently, these structures produce a stark disparity in social perception and, more importantly, result in dehumanization.
If only one group is afforded the privileges of humanity—such as individuality and the freedom to embody multiple identities—where, then, does that leave everyone else?
Human Fluidity Privilege operates in such a way that dominant groups are perceived as the default humans and are therefore granted neutrality, while their counterparts are viewed primarily through the lens of skin color.
This creates a system of fluidity versus fixity, where members of dominant groups are seen as deserving of the latitude to embody various identities, whereas people of color are positioned within fixed, pre-existing stereotypes that are continually reinforced through beliefs such as race essentialism.
Given that studies demonstrate that racial essentialism is associated with racial bias and rigid categorization of people (Ho, Roberts, & Gelman, 2015), alongside inconsistencies in how traits are attributed within such belief systems, this effectively produces a process of othering in society.
This othering manifests in the monopolization of human fluidity by dominant groups and is sustained through the dehumanization of those positioned outside this privilege.
Thus, society becomes divided into two categories: the human and “the other.”
This disparity extends beyond isolated cases and manifests in broader social contexts. For instance, documented accounts show that Black legal professionals are sometimes mistaken for defendants in courtrooms (Wilson, 2020).
This reflects the earlier claim that people of color are often viewed through the lens of race, with individual actions and identities generalized across the group—an approach that stands in sharp contrast to how their counterparts of European descent are perceived.
These consequences extend beyond perception and into tangible injustices. Studies have shown that racial bias can influence how evidence is interpreted in courtrooms (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000), demonstrating that such biases do not merely shape opinion but actively affect legal outcomes. In this way, the administration of justice itself can become distorted.
Perhaps more concerning, however, is the extent to which these belief systems serve to justify exclusionary practices. Research indicates that individuals who hold essentialist beliefs are more likely to accept social hierarchies as natural and to endorse stereotypes (Bastian & Haslam, 2006).
It is therefore unsurprising that such patterns contribute to the persistence of deep social divisions sustained by othering and exclusion.
If racism ultimately depends upon denying some people the full latitude of humanity while reserving that humanity for others, then its deepest operation is not merely prejudice but the unequal recognition of personhood.
To this end, one question persists: who is human and who is made to be the other?