In this article, Bell outlines the concept of interest convergence, an idea that has since become vital to Critical Race Theory, through an analysis of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Interest convergence has proven to be a useful tool in understanding how historical racial reforms are achieved. Here, Bell argues that, though popular discourses of American history present the Brown decision as motivated by moral and political convictions, it can be better understood as a result of intersecting practical considerations. Bell compares the circumstances of the case to similar preceding cases challenging school segregation. In those previous instances, the courts ruled not to end segregation in schooling, but to improve the standards of segregated schooling, to meet the standards of the “separate but equal” doctrine. What, Bell asks, makes Brown different? Interest convergence answers this question.
The outcome of Brown v. Board of Education was the result of a convergence of racial interests with a number of interests for the dominant class, domestically and abroad. Agitation was growing within the Black American population, many of whom had contributed to the nation’s success in World War II, and many of whom were increasingly dissatisfied with a continued lack of progress in racial reform. The dominant class faced a threat of civil unrest; more importantly, they risked the growth of communist sympathies within the United States. Abroad, claims of political freedom from the US, contrasted with continued segregation, threatened America’s international reputation, a particularly valuable resource given the ongoing Cold War with the USSR. Finally, as the post-war economy was booming, segregation (like enslavement before it) stood in the way of urbanization and industrialization, in the South in particular. As a result of the intersection of these social, political, and economic interests, it became more costly for the dominant class to maintain segregation than it would be to gradually abolish it.
Applied to other historical instances of racial reform, interest convergence is similarly useful. What, for example, could an application of interest convergence explain about the Emancipation Proclamation, the Fourteenth Amendment, or even the success of Barrack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign? Moreover, interest convergence is valuable as a tool through which to imagine how contemporary and future movements towards Black liberation may find success. While interest convergence theory emphasizes the agency of the dominant class in the movements of history, it also emphasizes the ways in which the agency of marginalized classes can bring about change. The threat of social unrest, or even insurrection, can impact the cost-benefit analysis employed by the dominant class; at times, this impact is enough to precipitate meaningful reform.
Paying attention to the changing interests and circumstances of the dominant class can be a legitimate strategy for Black liberation movements, as tracking these changes, like tracking the weather, might be informative concerning when particular political strategies may be the most effective. As Bell notes, “Further progress to fulfill the mandate of Brown is possible to the extent that the divergence of racial interests can be avoided or minimized” (Bell 528). If the actions of liberatory movements can take advantage of moments of convergence, as well as divergence, the political landscape of the United States could be strategically altered, reformed, or, even, radically reimagined.
(Point of clarification: when I note that interest convergence can be usefully applied in pursuit of liberation, I am not arguing for making appeals to white moderates, or for tactics of respectability and collaboration regarding dominant political classes. What I am trying to argue is that the actions of radical movements can change the cost-benefit analysis that the dominant class engages in, in pursuit of its interests. For example, the outcome of Brown was meaningfully influenced by the threat of domestic unrest. Likewise, the Haitian Revolution succeeded in part because the acts of revolutionaries made it too costly for France or any other imperial power to try to directly reassert enslavement on the Haitian people.)
Gabriel, I liked your point about the importance of interest convergence and divergence. I was also wondering about this likelihood, especially with the tensions between political parties and the growing popularity of politicians like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. I was thinking about what they would say if you suggested that interest convergence is a tool they could use to help with Black liberation and allow marginalized classes to create change and have change happen to them. That’s super important about this class, but it’s also a little disheartening how Critical Race Theory is treated in the U.S. and how few people know what it means. A big takeaway from the article was that the primary goal is to create effective schools for black children. I was interested in learning this in ProfSi’s ‘Money Politics and Prison class last semester. It is how the school system’s discrimination and marginalization of students of color directly impact the Prison Industrial Complex, and I think the article does an excellent job of reinforcing the importance of good schooling and school systems like successful magnet schools, for example. I’m from Baltimore City, and I have seen the direct impacts of states/governments letting students and communities down when it comes to educating the young.
I really like how you not only summarized some of the key points in the reading but you also highlighted why they are important. I liked how you mention using the demands of the dominant class to help with black liberation. I also believe this tactic is crucial because we can get people to see that we are not so different from each other, not just in race but in class too. By utilizing this tactic, black people may find that their initiatives are followed by more support. The article mentions how because of Brown’s decision, a large majority of the white population thought they would lose their influence or power (pg 35 and 37). The “interest-convergence” comes into play when the white families leave their schools to attend these newly created private ones. Black students not only get a proper funded education but the white families can either keep attending school or attend a private one.
I will say that Brown v. Board is an interesting case for a couple of points. First, by targeting education as the point of interest, it allows black people to delve into multiple other areas. For example housing is closely related to schooling and they wanted this case to eventually start to leak into that area as well. But justice moves slowly and one step at a time. What the black population needed was to first end Plessy v. Ferguson. By overturning this case first, “separate but equal” was considered unconstitutional. Although Brown was very significant, there’s other cases that played a more important role such as Bradley v. Richmond or Green v. New Kent County (this threatened schools to cooperate or federal funding will stop from HEW). It goes back to what they first needed to accomplish and that was ending separate but equal. It forced schools to desegregate but there was barely any push for integration. The actual text from Brown v. Board was how schools should “desegregate with all deliberate speed”. This is problematic because it allows schools to move on their own account. As we know, this made schools follow through very late after the decision. What it comes down to is being a resource problem. It’s not about morality right or wrong, changes were made due to resources. This is where interest-convergence comes into play.
Derrick Bell’s analysis of the Brown v. Board of Education decision reveals how the interests of different groups, particularly Black Americans and the dominant class, intersected strategically. The fear of civil unrest, potential communist sympathies, and the international reputation of the U.S. during the Cold War made segregation costly for the dominant class.
This convergence of interests played a role in the decision to end school segregation.
Bell suggests that grasping the interests of those in power can guide Black liberation movements. It’s not about trying to please those in charge but using their interests to advocate for what’s right.
However, while the idea of interests aligning can be useful, it raises a concern. Progress might seem real, but there’s a risk it could resemble the deceptive “separate but equal” era. This cautionary note questions whether advancements in racial equality are genuine or just symbolic, echoing worries from the Plessy v. Ferguson era. The reminder that interest convergence doesn’t always guarantee true equality serves as a critical lens to scrutinize societal changes. It prompts us to be wary of situations where progress might be more appearance than reality. In essence, Bell’s insights emphasize the need for a careful and critical approach to assessing the genuineness of advancements in the fight for racial equality.