| Summary: | This thesis introduces the concept of logicized racism — a covert yet potent form of racism that operates under the guise of logic, reason, and neutrality. These rationales are often derived from systemic racism. While systemic racism has been extensively theorized in critical scholarship, existing frameworks often displace individual accountability by locating racism exclusively from a structural point of view. Drawing on a critical-interpretivist approach and a literature-based theory-building methodology, this thesis attempts to bridge the gap between systemic racism and individual accountability by demonstrating how seemingly logical decisions — such as hiring practices, educational tracking, and integration policies— reproduce racial exclusion in Finland.
Anchored in the sociocultural landscape of contemporary Finnish society, the analysis draws from theory of systemic racism (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967), critical race theory (Crenshaw, 1989), postcolonial critique (Vuorela, 2009; Rastas, 2012; Keskinen 2019), and sociological theories on structure and agency (Blumer, 1969; Giddens, 1984, Archer, 1995). Furthermore, incorporating framing theory (Goffman, 1974) and identity-protective cognition thesis (Kahan, 2013), this thesis endeavours to contextualize how racial bias is justified, depoliticized and rendered invisible. In this thesis it has also been endeavoured to situate logicized racism within the existing typology of racism by addressing its similarities and differences with named types of racism, such as, systemic, intersectional, colourblind, aversive, and everyday forms. At its core, this thesis endeavours to provide a theoretical framework for the phenomenon that has been framed as logicized racism and outline the urgency of addressing the issue from both academic and social standpoints.
By synthesizing contemporary literature on racism in Finland, this thesis argues that, through the epistemic sanitization of racist logics, logicized racism allows individuals to enact discriminatory practices while evading responsibility—precisely because their actions appear reasonable, fair, or meritocratic. This form of racism may not thrive through personal animus, but through the interpersonal operationalization of systemic logics that appear neutral, rational, or benevolent. By framing exclusion as reasoned or realistic, logicized racism obscures its harm, thereby perpetuating harmful status quos. And that is precisely why reframing of both scholarly and societal understandings of how such acts of racism is enacted and justified, is necessary.
|
|---|