There is a way to ask a question that sounds rhetorical but is, in truth, an indictment. There is also a way to ask a question that exposes a moral contradiction so severe that the only honest response is not rebuttal, but repentance. The question at the center of this essay belongs to both categories, and it deserves to be stated plainly, carefully, and without euphemism. 

 

Why, in American public life, is the desire to be left alone so often interpreted as defiance? Why does quiet withdrawal, silence, or stillness provoke suspicion rather than respect? And more pointedly, why does Western society so reliably interpret the silent, peaceful stillness of an African American man as a threat, a potential crime, or an intolerable disruption that must be interrupted, tested, and provoked until any human response can be used as justification for force?

 

This question is not exaggerated. It is not emotional excess. It is not anecdotal noise cobbled together from isolated incidents. It describes a durable pattern that has been studied, named, measured, and normalized across decades of research in sociology, criminology, racial psychology, and policing studies.¹ The FBI’s own data on use-of-force encounters, the Department of Justice’s pattern-and-practice investigations, and peer-reviewed scholarship all converge on a sobering conclusion: Black men are disproportionately perceived as threats even in the absence of threatening behavior, and this perception materially shapes how authority responds to them.²

What makes this reality especially grievous is not only its persistence, but the context in which it persists. It endures in a nation that repeatedly proclaims itself committed to freedom, individual liberty, peace, contemplation, and Christian moral values. It endures in public spaces saturated with rhetoric about tolerance and inclusion, yet governed by reflexes of suspicion and control. 

I write this troubled in spirit, because this is not merely a question of race as social category. It is a question of moral imagination. It is a question of who is permitted interior life and who is denied it. It is a question of whose silence is presumed sacred and whose silence is presumed dangerous. And it is a question of a Western Christianity, particularly in its white evangelical expression, that has grown disturbingly comfortable blessing a social order that punishes Black peace as provocation.¹

​​  ​

Why Being Left Alone Is So Often Read as Defiance

Modern Western public space is governed by a lattice of unwritten rules that are rarely articulated and almost never interrogated. These rules insist that people be legible. To be legible is to be visibly occupied, socially intelligible, and purpose-driven in ways that others readily recognize. One must appear to be commuting, consuming, exercising, conversing, producing, or otherwise participating in the visible economy of motion.⁴ In short, one must perform harmlessness through activity.

Sociologists have long observed that silence in public disrupts this choreography. Stillness introduces ambiguity, and ambiguity unsettles societies organized around surveillance, predictability, and control. Michel Foucault famously noted that modern power does not merely punish deviance; it manages normalcy. Public order depends less on overt coercion than on continuous signals that people are behaving as expected.³ When someone withdraws from participation without explanation, discomfort often follows. That discomfort quickly morphs into suspicion. Silence interrupts the script, and interruption is easily misread as refusal. A person who does not explain themselves, does not perform busyness, and does not signal intent can be perceived as aloof, withholding, or quietly oppositional.⁴ 

At a baseline level, this misreading applies broadly. In highly socialized environments, opting out is often interpreted as opting against. The quiet person becomes the odd one out, the unsignaled variable. But this baseline misinterpretation is only the foundation. Race radically reshapes how silence is read, and in the United States, race reshapes everything.

​​​​

Why Monks Are Read as Spiritual and Black Men Are Not

Western culture has spent centuries curating distinct mythologies around different bodies, mythologies that operate beneath conscious awareness yet exert tremendous influence over perception. Eastern religious figures such as Tibetan monks, Shaolin practitioners, and Sikh men have been framed through a lens of mysticism that renders them disciplined, inward-facing, peaceful, and ultimately non-threatening.⁵
This framing did not arise organically. It emerged through centuries of Orientalism, a cultural process that cast Eastern spirituality as ancient, exotic, contemplative, and fundamentally removed from Western competition for power. As Edward Said observed, Orientalism allows the West to admire the East while simultaneously neutralizing it. The monk is rendered wise but harmless, profound but peripheral.⁵
When such a figure sits silently in a public space, Western observers possess a ready-made interpretive category. Meditation is assumed. Silence becomes depth. Stillness becomes virtue. The observer feels no urgency to intervene because the silence has already been classified as meaningful, disciplined, and safe.
African American men, by contrast, carry a radically different symbolic burden. They are subject to a racial mythology that codes them as hyper-visible, hyper-physical, emotionally volatile, and perpetually suspect.⁶ This mythology did not arise by accident. It was constructed and refined over centuries to justify slavery, surveillance, segregation, and later mass incarceration and aggressive policing.⁷

Sociological research has repeatedly shown that Black men are perceived as older, stronger, and more threatening than their white counterparts even when controlling for size, age, and behavior. A widely cited study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that participants consistently overestimated the age and culpability of Black boys and men, perceiving them as less innocent and more dangerous.²

When an African American man occupies the same posture of silence as a monk, observers do not reach for a spiritual explanation. They reach for a criminal one. The questions that arise are not contemplative but accusatory. What is he hiding. Why is he not moving. Is he watching someone. Does this count as loitering.
In this racialized logic, silence does not signal depth. It signals danger. Stillness does not indicate peace. It indicates threat.

​​​​

Why Police Escalation Follows with Grim Predictability

Policing in the United States has never functioned solely as neutral enforcement of law. It has also served as a mechanism of social boundary maintenance, tasked with managing perceived disorder rather than responding only to actual crime. The Department of Justice’s pattern-and-practice investigations in cities such as Ferguson, Baltimore, and Chicago have documented how discretionary police encounters are often driven by suspicion untethered from criminal behavior.¹ ² Officers are trained, both explicitly and implicitly, to treat ambiguity as danger. Non-responsiveness is frequently framed as resistance. Calm silence is interpreted as failure to comply. These interpretations are reinforced by training materials, institutional culture, and legal doctrines that afford wide latitude to officers’ subjective perceptions.

Within this framework, an officer’s unease becomes sufficient justification for contact. The encounter begins not because of unlawful behavior, but because the officer experiences discomfort. When the subject is a Black man, that discomfort is intensified by racial scripts that associate Blackness with threat.⁶
The officer approaches to test, to question, to probe. The stated rationale may be safety, but the functional goal is reassurance. The Black man is expected to perform harmlessness on demand, to narrate his own innocence, to soothe the officer’s anxiety.¹ Eventually, any human being responds to sustained prodding. A word is spoken. A tone is expressed. A boundary is asserted. That response, however mild, is then reframed as noncompliance. Official reports frequently employ phrases such as “the suspect became uncooperative” or “the subject failed to comply,” language that obscures the provocation that preceded the response.¹
This pattern is not anecdotal. It appears consistently in DOJ findings, civilian review board reports, and investigative journalism. It is not the product of individual malice alone. It is the predictable outcome of a system that treats Black quiet as an unresolved problem requiring intervention.¹​​

​

The Cruel Paradox That Calm Makes Things Worse

One of the most devastating findings in research on racialized policing is that composure does not reliably protect Black men. In many cases, it exacerbates suspicion. Calmness is reinterpreted as arrogance, defiance, or concealed hostility. Where monks are praised for serenity, Black men are punished for it.⁶ This asymmetry exposes the hollowness of advice that urges compliance and calm as universal solutions. Such advice assumes that calm is read the same way across bodies. It is not. The same behavior produces radically different interpretations depending on race.

The FBI’s own use-of-force data shows that Black individuals are more likely to experience escalation during discretionary encounters, even when no weapon is present and no crime is alleged. The problem is not behavior. It is perception, and perception is shaped by history.¹ ²​​

​

The Deeper Issue of Who Is Allowed an Inner Life

At its core, this phenomenon reveals a hierarchy of interiority. Western culture readily grants inner life to some and denies it to others. Monks are presumed to have minds. White individuals are presumed to possess complexity, individuality, and nuance. Institutions are granted benefit of the doubt and interpretive generosity.⁴ African American men, by contrast, are often treated as bodies without privacy, presences without inwardness. Their interior lives are not assumed. Their silence is not respected. When a Black man claims interior space through stillness, contemplation, or meditation, he violates an unspoken rule. He becomes unreadable.⁶ ⁷ Unreadability is intolerable to systems built on surveillance. Surveillance requires legibility. And so unreadability is punished.³​​

​

Why This Is Exhausting and Why Withdrawal Makes Sense

To live in a society where one’s stillness is provocation and one’s silence is criminalized is to live under constant interpretive threat. In such a society, the desire to withdraw into nature, solitude, or quiet is not antisocial. It is rational self-preservation.¹ This logic explains why the fantasy of disappearing into peace is not escapism but sanity. When presence alone invites interrogation, absence becomes safety.​​

​

Why This Is a Clarion Call to American Evangelical Christianity

Here the grief deepens. Because this pattern persists in a nation where millions of people identify as peace-loving, Jesus-following Christians. Pew Research consistently finds that the dominant wing of American evangelicals wield disproportionate cultural and political influence in the United States, particularly in shaping attitudes toward law enforcement and public order. A faith centered on a dark-skinned Savior who withdrew to lonely places, who sat in silence, who refused to perform reassurance for power, has been domesticated into a moral framework that tolerates the violent interruption of Black peace. 

Jesus was repeatedly unreadable to authorities. He was calm under pressure. He refused to explain Himself on demand. These traits were not celebrated by the powers of His day. They were interpreted as threat.
And yet, modern American Christianity often sides instinctively with the interrogators rather than the one sitting quietly.¹ Why does a society that praises prayer closets tolerate the harassment of a Black man who prays silently in public. Why do churches that preach peace remain silent when law enforcement escalates encounters with men who are doing nothing at all. These are not political questions. They are moral ones.​​

​​

Why America Permits the Provocation of Peaceful Black Men

Toward the end of this examination, the question must be asked plainly. Why does American society, especially those who claim allegiance to Jesus, permit law enforcement officers to provoke peaceful African American men and then punish them for responding as human beings. Why is peace not protected when it wears Black skin. Why is solitude not respected when claimed by Black bodies. Why is silence treated as criminal only for those whose existence has been historically policed. 

​

If Christians truly believe that every person bears the image of God, then interior life should be sacred. Silence should be honored. Stillness should be protected. Yet in practice, these virtues are selectively applied.​​

​

The Final Truth, Stated Without Softening

Being left alone is treated as defiance only for people whose existence has been historically controlled. For others, it is a lifestyle choice. For Black men, it is often treated as a threat. That is not an accident. It is a legacy. And legacies can be repented of. This moment calls for more than awareness. It calls for moral courage. It calls for the dominant wing of American evangelicals in particular to examine why their theology has made room for the violent policing of Black peace and the open support for politicians who advocate it. It calls for a repentance that does not stop at words but extends to advocacy, accountability, and solidarity.  

Until silence is sacred for everyone, peace will remain conditional. And a peace that is conditional is not peace at all. The question is no longer whether this pattern exists. The question is whether those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace are willing to confront the systems that punish peace when it appears in Black flesh.

​​

​​

 

References 

Introduction & Framing Claims

¹ On the normalization of racialized threat perception and its relationship to policing, see Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do (New York: Viking, 2019), chapters 3–5; United States Department of Justice, Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department (2015).

​

² On the persistence of racial bias in discretionary police encounters despite the absence of criminal behavior, see Stanford Open Policing Project, “Findings,” https://openpolicing.stanford.edu; Phillip Atiba Goff et al., “The Essence of Innocence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106, no. 4 (2014).

​

 

Why Being Left Alone Is So Often Read as Defiance

³ Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), especially Part Three on surveillance and normalization.

​

⁴ Erving Goffman, Behavior in Public Places (New York: Free Press, 1963), on legibility, social scripts, and sanctioned withdrawal.

​

 

Why Monks Are Read as Spiritual and Black Men Are Not

⁵ Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), on Western construction of Eastern spirituality as non-threatening and exotic.

​

⁶ Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Biased, chapters 2 and 6, documenting racialized threat perception and cognitive association between Blackness and danger.

​

⁷ Phillip Atiba Goff et al., “Not Yet Human: Implicit Knowledge, Historical Dehumanization, and Contemporary Consequences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94, no. 2 (2008).