!

Theory of Whiteness as a Foundational Framework for Privilege Awareness Vu Tran University of the Pacific

"#$%&'!%(!)#*"$+$,,! !

! !

-!

Theory of Whiteness as a Foundational Framework for Privilege Awareness Since Peggy McIntoshs paper on white privilege over 20 years ago, White identity has been a critical part of many dialogues on social equality and justice. Scholars have joined McIntosh in her work by unpacking whiteness to better understand it as a social construct (Durington, 2009; Feagin, Vera & Batur, 2001; Frankenberg, 1993; Gallagher, 1994; Lipsitz, 1998). David Owen has contributed a framework that adds a critical dimension to understanding whiteness. I propose that the theory of whiteness can allow for scholars and practitioners to frame other dominant identities that have been less explored, such as age, religion, and ability (Black & Stone, 2011). Owens Theory of Whiteness Owen (2007) presents his theory of whiteness as an element in a comprehensive theory of racial oppression (p. 203). He proposes that whiteness exists in three key modalities: as a structuring property of social systems, a complex relation to embodiment and an instantiation and reproduction of power in the formation of social order (p. 207). His work mainly focuses on the first mode of structuring property, in which he uses a definition of structure as something that is temporal and not fixed (Giddens, 1984). Per this definition, social structures reproduce themselves over time through practices and unacknowledged conditions of action. Through this theory, Owen seeks to work towards the broader project of racial justice does not place whites on a pedestal for admiration and veneration (p. 217). Owens theory recognizes and integrates the multiple ways whiteness has been defined by past scholars: as a social identity that has substantial impacts on a persons well-being (Lipsitz, 1998), as a cultural representation (Frankenberg, 1993), and as an asset or property (McIntosh, 1992). Utilizing Habermas (1994) theory of communicative action, which centers

"#$%&'!%(!)#*"$+$,,! !

! !

.!

on concepts of consent and influence, Owen makes use of consent, which is a social concept understood as individuals having an interlocking understanding of their personal experiences with the social context that they exist in, or what he describes as the life-world. Owen describes the three senses of whiteness as overlapping and related to one another, as individuals understanding and consciousness of their whiteness are in dyadic relationship with the lifeworld. Theory of whiteness allows for scholars and practitioners to better understand whiteness through what he describes as functional properties, in which he offers seven. The first property is that it offers a particular perspective that shapes the way that individuals define themselves. Second, whiteness creates a social location for structural advantage. Third, whiteness is normalized and defines what is acceptable. The fourth property dictates that whiteness is invisible to whites and highly visible to non-whites. Fifth, whiteness must be distinguished from skin color in that it is more about a way of being. A sixth property is that whiteness is continuously being defined and redefined. And the seventh property is social context of violence in which whiteness exists. He presents this framework as structural property in response to those who believe that whiteness is something that can be refused by individuals. He offers that understanding whiteness as structural property allows for whiteness to be exposed, challenged, resisted and disrupted. (p. 205). Numerous authors from various disciplines have utilized Owens framework in their own work. From intercultural communication of health care in South Australia (Grant & Luxford, 2011) to English papers about white characters in novels (Davis, 2008) to whiteness in news and journalism (Dolan, 2011), this model has provided more definitional understanding of how we as scholars can make meaning of whiteness. Owen has even revisited this theoretical framework to

"#$%&'!%(!)#*"$+$,,! !

! !

/!

look at the current-day political landscape of how a black U.S. president continues to have his authority undermined by white individuals (Owen, 2010). Uses in Educational Research This framework has been utilized in a few examples of educational research (Petitt, 2008; Petitt, 2009; Porter, 2011). There has been research regarding the multicultural competency of student affairs at members of Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (Porter, 2011), the experiences of black women in the academy (Petitt, 2009), and the narratives of custodial workers at a research-intensive university (Petitt, 2008). However, not much other explicit utilization or mention of the theory has been found in educational research and literature. While some authors (Davis, 2008; Grant & Luxford, 2011; Porter, 2011) only make brief references to the theory, others deeply incorporate the theory into their scholarship (Dolan, 2011; Petitt, 2008) have been some of the few authors who has taken the theory of whiteness and deeply incorporated the framework in their writing. Dolans dissertation research focuses on whiteness and news, and how white journalists are shaped by the four functional properties in Owens framework. Petitts work centers on the experiences of black women in relation to whiteness through the functional properties. Theory of whiteness has also been framed in context of Critical Race Theory (CRT) by some authors (Dolan, 2011; Petitt, 2008). Petitt (2008) presents Owens framework as a subtext to CRT in her work, and utilizes them in juxtaposition to one another. In CRT, it is believed that 1) racism is something that many people of color live almost all the time; 2) race is socially constructed; and, 3) people of color are encouraged to speak out and share their narratives. As theoretical frameworks, theory of whiteness and CRT serve in complimentary roles to one another.

"#$%&'!%(!)#*"$+$,,! !

! !

0!

Dolan (2011) utilizes the framework in a manner that perhaps provides the best indicator of the potential for the theory of whiteness. He discusses the third functional property of normalization by developing a concept he coins white incumbency and maintaining racial status quo. Dolan then goes in-depth with the fourth function property of whiteness, in discussing how both the news and whiteness stay hidden by remaining elusive targets through its instabilities and contradictions. Challenges Several scholars have challenged Owens theory of whiteness (Frankenberg, 2001; Gallagher, 1994; McClendon, 2004; Mills, 1998). It is not surprising, given the current-day climate of identity politics and regular claims of reverse racism (Dolan, 2011). Owen addresses concerns that of the correlation between white identity and white supremacy (Mills, 1998; McClendon, 2004). Mills provides critiques of Owens framework as one that does not account for systems of white supremacy. In response, Owen breaks down Mills deep analysis of white supremacy by stating that the focus is mainly on supremacy, leaving whiteness unexamined. McClendon (2004) seeks to separate white supremacy from white individuals. He sees white supremacy as a condition of particular practices of certain white people. McClendon does not account for historical conditions of the life-world that individuals live in, and sees individual actions as unrelated to one another. Owens model stresses the importance of understanding the historical context as a necessary part of his framework. Frankenberg (2001) and Gallagher (1994) have challenged the concept that whiteness is invisible, which is the fourth property of Owens framework. Dolan responds that while racial consciousness may be happening on a more individual level, there is still a social structural disconnect with that identity:

"#$%&'!%(!)#*"$+$,,! !

! !

1!

You often can find people who will say I know Im white and who begrudgingly admit that being white comes with privileges (though still often nebulous and unidentifiable to them), but they rarely see, much less admit, how they continually engage or are complicit in practices that protect those privileges and white incumbency. While many will admit they are white, its rare that they will admit they work for a white newspaper, a white school system, a white university, or a white criminal justice system. (p. 13) It is helpful for Dolan to distinguish between an individuals self-awareness and their relation to the social context that one may live in. Scholars argue that it is the latter component that is necessary for significant and purposeful action taken on the part of the individual or organization (Dolan, 2011; Petitt, 2008; Porter, 2011). University presidents who acknowledge that they are white is fine, but by labeling their institution is a white university allows for an acknowledgement of a broader social context that is not simply isolated to one individual. Dolan discourages scholars to look at the theory of whiteness through a lens of essentialism. Instead of trying to define what whiteness is, we should focus on what whiteness does and how it operates rather than trying to get a fix on what it is. (p. 21). He aligns with Owen (2007) in the account of the reproduction of whiteness and the modes by which it maintains white supremacy is especially important to explain the persistence of racial oppression in the postcivil rights era (p. 205). Discussion The intention of centering the role of whiteness in racial oppression is critical to addressing racial oppression. Furthermore, the motive for focusing on whiteness is not based on a selfish need for righteousness and praise provides an important foundation for anti-racist work.

"#$%&'!%(!)#*"$+$,,! !

! !

2!

The functional properties of this theoretical framework allow for scholars and practitioners in educational research to look at whiteness as not an individual concern, but as a social structure that has a much broader impact on communities and organizations. The merits of this theory rest in the ability to name unpopular dynamics of racial dominance, particularly in its third and fourth properties of normalization and invisibility, respectively. These properties can be potentially translated and offered as a foundation for understanding of other dominant identities. I propose that normalization and invisibility do not exist only for whiteness, but also for well-aged people, able-bodied people, and Christians as examples. The framework is broad enough that it will allow for scholars to place more definition and understanding of identities that have been more elusive and complicated than whiteness. Owen (2007) asserts that there is unity in the definition of whiteness, even with some definitional murkiness. His theory attempts to see the potential variances in defining whiteness as expressions of the different dimensions of whiteness. As Petitt (2008) offers in her work, theory of whiteness can be utilized in conjunction with Critical Race Theory to provide a more complete lens to understand power dynamics in race relations. Similarly, this clarity and unity of the complexities of many identities can be mirrored and achieved by capitalizing on this theoretical framework.

"#$%&'!%(!)#*"$+$,,! !

! ! References

3!

Black, L.L., & Stone D. (2011). Expanding the Definition of Privilege: The Concept of Social Privilege. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 33(4), 243 255. Davis, R. (2008). a white illusion of a man: Snowman, Survival and Speculation in Margaret Atwoods Oryx and Crake. In Baumgartner, H.L. and Davis, R. (Eds.), Hosting the monster (237 256). Amsterdam: Rodopi Dolan, K.M. (2011). Whiteness and news: The interlocking social construction of realities. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/24404 Durington, M. (2009). Introduction: The Stakes of Whiteness Studies. Transforming Anthropology, 17(1), 23. Feagin, J.R., Vera, H. & Batur, P. (2001). White Racism: The Basics. New York: Routledge. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gallagher, C. A. (1994). White Reconstruction in the University. Socialist Review, 94(1&2), 165187.
!

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Grant, J. & Luxford, Y. (2011). Culture its a big term isnt it? An analysis of child and family health nurses understandings of culture and intercultural communication. Health Sociology Review. 20(1), 16-27. Habermas, J. (1994). The Theory of Communicative Action, 2 vols, trans. T. McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Lipsitz, G. (1998). The Possessive Investment in Whiteness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. McClendon III, J.H. (2004). On the Nature of Whiteness and the Ontology of Race: Toward a Dialectical Material Analysis. What White Looks Like. New York: Routledge. McIntosh, P. (1992). White and male privilege: A personal accounting of coming to see correspondences through work in womens studies. In M. L. Anderson & P. H. Collins (Eds.), Race, class, and gender: An anthology (pp. 7081). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mills, C.W. (1998), The Racial Polity, in Blackness Visible. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

"#$%&'!%(!)#*"$+$,,! !

! !

4!

Nakayama, T. K., & Krizek, R. L. (1999). Whiteness as Strategic Rhetoric. In T. K. Nakayama & J. N. Martin (Eds.), Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity (pp. 87106). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Owen, D.S. (2007). Toward a critical theory of whiteness. Philosophy & Social Criticism. 33(2), 203 - 222. Owen, D.S. (2010). Othering Obama: How whiteness is utilized to undermine authority. Other Modernities. 3, 112 119. Petitt, B. (2009). Borrowed Power. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 11(5), 633 645. Porter, P.L. (2011). Multicultural competence of student affairs administrators at member institutions of the council for Christian colleges and universities. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10484/3737 Twine, F. W., & Gallagher, C. A. (2008). The Future of Whiteness: A Map of the Third Wave. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(1), 424.