White Out

The Continuing Significance of Racism

Ashley W. Doane, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Ashley W. Doane, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN:
  9781136064661
• Print ISBN:
  9780415935821
• Subtopic: Histoire sociale

What does it mean to be white? This remains the question at large in the continued effort to examine how white racial identity is constructed and how systems of white privilege operate in everyday life. White Out brings together the original work of leading scholars across the disciplines of sociology, philosophy, history, and anthropology to give readers an important and cutting-edge study of "whiteness".

PART I

Rethinking Whiteness Studies

---

1

Rethinking Whiteness Studies

WOODY DOANE

One important recent development in the study of race and ethnic relations is the emergence of “whiteness” as an area of investigation. “Whiteness studies” is part of an interdisciplinary project that brings together insights from fields as diverse as legal studies, history, cultural studies, anthropology, education, and sociology.¹What is new and unique about “whiteness studies” is that it reverses the traditional focus of research on race relations by concentrating attention upon the socially constructed nature of white identity and the impact of whiteness upon intergroup relations. In contrast to the usual practice of studying the “problem” of “minority groups,” the “whiteness studies” paradigm makes problematic the identity and practices of the dominant group (Gabriel 1998).

The emergence of “whiteness studies” can be seen as an extension of recent critiques of the sociology of race and ethnic relations. Historically, students of race and ethnic relations focused on subordinate or “minority” groups; that is, those defined as the “other” by the dominant group. This reflected both the social context and relations of power in the larger society. The study of race and ethnic relations—and sociology in general—in the early and mid-twentieth century was shaped by the concerns of the dominant white/Anglo-American group, especially the “social problems” ofimmigration and urbanization (Coser 1978). Dominant-group social and political interests led to a focus on assimilation, particularly with regard to European immigrants. This was compatible with the more general trend in sociological theory of viewing race and ethnicity as a phenomenon that would wither away in the face of modernization—as a result of either rationalization or the increasing primacy of class conflict. In any event, assimilation theory was as much political prescription as social theory—it was a white, Anglo-American blueprint for what “ought” to happen. Moreover, both perspectives on assimilation, the political and the sociological, envisioned assimilation into “mainstream” American society—a mainstream that was dominated by white, Anglo-American interests.

Well before mid-century, social and sociological attention began to be directed towards the glaring inequality and subordinate status of African-Americans, a situation that was often referred to by the telling label of “the Negro problem” (McKee 1993; Steinberg 1995). Although the racial problems of the United States were certainly viewed as difficult, many theorists (e.g., Robert E. Park, Gunnar Myrdal, Everett Hughes) expected that the assimilation process would eventually expand to include African-Americans. While the focus of research continued to be upon subordinate groups, some observers began to consider the role of whites in the racial problems of the United States. For example, Myrdal (1944:li-lii) spoke of the need to study “what goes on in the minds of white Americans.” Unfortunately, this attention was limited to studies of prejudice, with the underlying assumption being that the major obstacle to the integration/assimilation of African-Americans was the prejudicial attitudes of whites. Other dimensions of white domination remained unexamined.

The research program outlined above led to the failure to foresee the Civil Rights and other race-based social movements, the failure to account for the persistence of ethnic assertion, and the failure to explain the continuing significance of race in the United States. Indeed, it has seemingly become a commonplace to describe this as one of the great failures of social science (McKee 1993; Steinberg 1995; Omi and Winant 1986). In response to these changes, post-1960s study of race and ethnic relations has focused upon subordinate groups, with particular emphasis placed upon issues of identity, inequality, change, and resistance. New critical perspectives have examined institutional racism and internal colonialism (e.g., Carmichael and Hamilton 1967; Blauner 1972), explanations for the persistence of racial inequality and conflict (e.g., Blumer 1965; Bonacich 1972, 1980), the evolution of racial ideologies (e.g., Omi and Winant 1986), the resurgence of submerged or suppressed identities (Nagel 1996), and the impact of new patterns of immigration (e.g., Portes and Rumbaut, 1996). It is probably safe to say that little of the pre-1960 sociological thinking on race and ethnic relations has gone unchallenged.

Throughout the early stages of this paradigmatic crisis, whiteness—and its role in intergroup relations—remained unexplored territory. For the most part, whiteness was treated as a default category, as textbooks (a major medium through which sociologists present scholarship to the larger society) continued to focus upon subordinate groups—the one exception being studies of “white ethnics,” who, it was argued, were still being assimilated into the (“white”) mainstream. When explicit attention was directed toward whites, it was to continue the tradition of studying white attitudes (i.e., prejudice) toward subordinate groups. What emerged from this downplaying of “whiteness” was a one-dimensional perspective on race relations, a sociology that by its neglect of the identity of the dominant white group has treated majority-minority relations as if it were necessary to understand only one actor.²Thus the more recent emergence of “whiteness studies” is an important component of the rethinking of the study of race and ethnic relations.

One important observation is that “whiteness studies” is not as new as it seems. To some degree, it constitutes the “repackaging” of earlier insights about the nature of whiteness. For example, W. E. B. Du Bois was speaking about “white privilege” when he described the “public and psychological wage” enjoyed by even the poorest whites” (1956 [1935]:700–701). His (Du Bois 1969 [1920]) chapter “The Souls of White Folk” explores whiteness and white supremacy in more detail. Other African-American writers (e.g., Ralph Ellison, Kenneth Clark, James Baldwin) also commented upon the nature of whiteness (cf. Baldwin 1984; Roediger 1998). Tellingly, the primacy of African-American writers in the early investigation of “whiteness” underscores the invisibility of whiteness to white Americans, while the relative lack of recognition received by this work highlights the marginalization of the contributions of African-Americans to the study of race relations.

As I noted earlier, what is new about “whiteness studies” is the explicit focus upon whiteness as a subject of study and the deliberate use of labels such as “whiteness studies” to describe the field. This recent emergence of whiteness studies gives rise to several important questions. Why was whiteness essentially ignored in the sociological study of race and ethnic relations? Why did “whiteness studies” emerge when it did in the late 1980s and 1990s? How is its emergence linked to broader trends in society and in the study of race and ethnic relations? A sociology of knowledge perspective can provide some essential insights into the rise of whiteness studies.

As Karl Mannheim (1936) observed, ideas are grounded in changing social and economic circumstances. Following Mannheim, I suggest that the emergence of the idea of “whiteness studies” is the result of the confluence of several social dynamics—new social contexts and new intellectual perspectives. Perhaps the key factor is the “crisis” of whiteness: the continuing challenge to white supremacy and normative whiteness in social institutions and in American culture, and the withering away of white ethnic identities. This occurred in concert with increasing economic change and insecurity and the restructuring of the racial/ethnic demography of the United States as a result of post-1970 immigration. These forces not only changed racial understandings but they also made whiteness more visible. At the same time, sociological perspectives and social thought on race relations were slowly being recast by the new, more critical paradigms described above. These perspectives were more receptive to “seeing” whiteness, particularly to the extent that they focused upon issues of racial stratification and white racism. Interestingly, “whiteness studies” still emerged initially outside sociology—in legal studies, history, and cultural studies—a testament to the powerful impact of earlier “minus-one” approaches to race relations that examined all groups except the majority (Banton 1983; Doane 1997b).

On the microlevel, trends within the academy may also have played a significant role in the emergence of whiteness studies. To some degree, academic discourses on race (and other social issues) have incorporated a concern with the social location of the researcher, often implying that some voices or perspectives could be more “authentic” than other voices. In this context, whiteness studies offered whites a venue in which they could claim authenticity and expertise and make a contribution to the recasting of the study of race and ethnic relations (Bonnett 1996b). Thus the rapid growth of “whiteness studies” may also reflect the individual and collective self-interest of white researchers—an attempt to retain a grip on the mainstream of the study of race and ethnic relations (see Andersen, Chapter 2 in this volume).³

Also significant is the connection between whiteness studies and antiracist politics. As a paradigm, the field of whiteness studies generally claims an avowedly antiracist perspective to the extent that it is as much political project as critical paradigm. By focusing upon the oft-hidden aspects of whiteness and by taking a critical perspective, practitioners of whiteness studies hope to force whites to confront issues of race, to make white dominance problematic, and to work toward—to use the title of David Roediger's 1994 book—“the abolition of whiteness.” Beyond the academic realm, confronting “whiteness” has also become a core task for antiracist activists (Bonnett 1996a) to such an extent that there exists a Center for the Study of White American Culture and national conferences of antiracist activists dedicated to challenging white hegemony. The study of “whiteness” seems to offer a vehicle through which progressive whites believe that they can mobilize to challenge white racism.

In sum, I maintain that the emergence of “whiteness studies” is grounded in social change, particularly changes in the social relations reflected in the idea of “race.” Social movements challenging white hegemony and social changes in American society created space for the inclusion of “whiteness” as a key concept in our understanding of race and ethnic relations. Also significant is the fact that whiteness studies itself—by its very existence—is (often consciously) contributing to the reshaping of the relationships that it attempts to study.

Given the emergence and explosive growth of “whiteness studies” during the past decade, we have reached the point where it is useful to reflect upon the contributions of this new venture. My objective in this chapter is to present a critical assessment of the implications of “whiteness studies” for the sociology of race and ethnic relations, one in which I consider both the strengths and weaknesses of the paradigm. This will involve several interrelated tasks. First, I examine two of the essential insights of recent scholarship on white racial identity: the invisibility (particularly to whites) and socially constructed nature of “whiteness.” Second, I begin to reposition the study of whiteness by emphasizing the effects of “whiteness” upon intergroup relations in the United States, particularly its role in the reproduction of white hegemony. Third, I consider the current crisis of “whiteness” and the potential implications of this event for the evolution of white identity. I conclude with an outline for the future development of the sociological study of whiteness and an overview of the remainder of this book.

THE ESSENTIAL INSIGHT: WHITE RACIAL INVISIBILITY

The central component of the sociology of whiteness is the observation that white Americans have a lower degree of self-awareness about race and their own racial identity than members of other racial-ethnic groups. While the nature of white racial identity remains, for the most part, uncharted territory for sociological research, a growing body of research suggests that whiteness is a “hidden identity” (Doane 1997b:378); that is, that it does not generally intrude upon the everyday experiences of most whites. In interviews with white subjects, Robert Terry (1981:119), Joe Feagin and Hernán Vera (1995:139), and Beverly Tatum (1997:93) found that the most common answer to questions concerning the meaning of whiteness was “I never thought of it.” Similarly, Judith Martin and colleagues (1996:137) found that college students who adopted the white label were generally unable to provide any meaning for the identity beyond “white means white.” To some degree, then, it is possible to speak of whites' unconsciousness or “transparency” (Flagg 1997:629) with regard to their own racial identity. An important aspect of transparency in whiteness studies is the emphasis on “white privilege”—the unearned benefits that flow to whites in the American racial order—as well as the “lack of awareness” of this privilege by whites (Mclntosh 1989; Wildman 1996; Rothenberg 2002).

The “hidden” nature of whiteness is grounded in the dynamics of dominant group status. As a sociopolitically and numerically dominant group, whites in the United States have used their political and cultural hegemony to shape the racial order and racial understandings of American society (on the process of “racial formation,” see Omi and Winant 1986:57–69). Historically, white-dominated racial understandings have generally focused upon the characteristics (i.e., “differences”) of subordinate groups rather than the nature of whiteness. This emphasis by whites upon the racial “other” has gone hand in hand with the politically constructed role of whiteness as the “unexamined center” of American society. Because whites have historically controlled the major institutions of American society, they have been able to appropriate the social and cultural “mainstream” and make white understandings and practices normative (on the “Anglo core culture,” see Feagin and Feagin 1996).

The mainstreaming or normalization of whiteness has in turn had important implications for white racial consciousness. Unlike members of subordinate groups, whites are less likely to feel socially and culturally “different” in their everyday experiences and much less likely to have experienced significant prejudice, discrimination, or disadvantage as a result of their race. Given that what passes as the normative center is often unnoticed or taken for granted, whites often feel a sense of culturelessness and racelessness. For most whites, this socially constructed centering is magnified by the decline in ethnic affiliations and ethnic differences among whites, a process that has reduced group identities to “symbolic” individual affiliations or mere “descent categories” (Gans 1979; Alba 1990; Waters 1990; Doane 1997b). The overall effect of these dynamics is to reinforce a lack of self-consciousness among whites, both individually and as a group. Consequently, in a discourse that focuses upon differences and the racialized “other,” white becomes a default category—whiteness is defined through boundaries and exclusion, by being “not of color.” It is not surprising, then, when whites conclude, as did one of Ruth Frankenberg's (1993:198) respondents, that “they are different, but I'm the same as everybody else.”

In essence, the mainstreaming of whiteness and white racial unconsciousness interact in a mutually reinforcing relationship. To the extent that whiteness is the unexamined center of American society, whites are less likely to consider their own white identity. Conversely, to the extent that white racial unconsciousness persists, whites are less likely to perceive the degree to which whiteness permeates cultural understandings and institutional practices—and are thereby more likely to resist attempts to redefine the white “center” of American society. This relationship is at the core of the hidden nature of whiteness at both the individual and societal levels.

While the “hidden” nature and institutional and cultural embeddedness of white racial identity are important insights, it is essential not to overstate the case for white racial unconsciousness. Historically, white racial identity has been asserted and group mobilization has occurred when whites felt threatened by social changes, immigration, and challenges from subordinate groups. This defensive assertion (centering on claims of superiority and out-group inferiority) has taken such forms as Anglo-Saxonism, the Ku Klux Klan, immigration restriction movements, the White Citizens' Councils, and the current resurgence of white-supremacist groups (Higham 1988; Horsman 1981; J. Daniels 1997; Dobratz and Shanks-Meile 1997; Ferber 1998a, 1998b). On a microlevel, white racial awareness can increase because of “momentary minority” status (Gallagher 1997:7) or exposure to racialized environments and challenges to white dominance (Gallagher 1995; Saito 1995; Helms 1990; Tatum 1997). As will be discussed below, the dynamics of white racial awareness and group mobilization may become increasingly important in the future.

RETHINKING WHITENESS STUDIES
“WHITENESS” : THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION

One major challenge for those in the field of “whiteness studies” is the need to analyze the core concept. What, sociologically speaking, is “whiteness?” What does it mean to claim a “white” identity? Unfortunately, this issue has for the most part not been addressed. To some degree this reflects the general trend of overlooking whiteness; however, much of the recent literature on “whiteness” also fails to examine this question in any systematic manner. This is dangerous terrain. To focus upon issues of “whiteness” while treating it as conceptually unproblematic is to risk essentializing “whiteness,” even if it is generally recognized that “whiteness” is a social construction. More important, to fail to consider the social meaning attached to “whiteness” is to miss a key element of the role of whiteness in race and ethnic relations.

The sociological significance of “whiteness” is closely connected to the meaning of “race.” As we conclude the twentieth century, there is a growing consensus among social scientists that “race” has no scientific validity but that it is a socially constructed category based upon the arbitrary (and imprecise) evaluation of physical characteristics (Montagu 1974; Gould 1981). Thus “racial groups” are social creations and “racial identities” reflect a process of both affiliation and external ascription. Moreover, as Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1986) remind us, the racial understandings of a society undergo a constant pr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Part I: Rethinking Whiteness Studies
• Part II: New Perspectives on Whiteness
• Part III: Whiteness and Color-Blind Racism: Empirical Studies
• Part IV: Whiteness and Antiracism
• Part V: Conclusion
• Notes
• References
• Contributors
• Index