Читать книгу Whiteness in America - Monica McDermott - Страница 6

When Americans think about race, “white” is often the furthest thing from their minds. To have a race is to be black, Asian, Latina/o or American Indian. Yet whiteness colors so much of social life in the United States, from the organization and maintenance of social structures to an individual’s sense of self. Why is there such a disconnect?

Before being able to answer this question, it is important to understand just what the term “white” means. Determining who is considered white—or black, or American Indian, or any other race—may seem obvious. In common conversation, people are said to appear visually as though they belong to a particular race. So, for example, membership in the category “white” is automatic if one has light skin, straight hair, and blue eyes. However, it is not the case that the possession of a given set of physical attributes automatically designates membership of a particular racial group. The meaning of race and any corresponding physical identifiers are deeply embedded in power relations (Omi 2001). This construction of whiteness is a central part of the social construction of race itself. Race is a result of social relations, not simply a reflection of the enduring attributes of any particular group of people. Hence the category “white” changes its meaning and shifts its boundaries in different times and places. Sometimes it goes unnoticed by the majority group, while at other times whites are readily seen, even by themselves.

Although the privilege of whiteness has touched, in some way, every part of the globe, its manifestation in America is relatively unique. European colonialism led to an equation between “race” and dominance, as settler colonists from Europe oppressed and exploited non-European (and therefore non-white) residents throughout the world. One of the starkest examples of this exploitation was the slave trade. The extensive transport of slaves to the United States—coupled with a relatively large population of European origin—led to the development of a society that was built upon racial violence and subordination. The genocide of indigenous populations further solidified the power of whites, who, given their numeric majority, were less threatened by a non-white revolution than were their counterparts in other countries. In America, not only is whiteness synonymous with privilege, but the mobilization and defense of whites’ interests have fundamentally shaped every aspect of life. Even the initial ethnic differences among European settlers slowly blurred, creating one uniform “white” group—at which point whiteness became increasingly associated with intelligence and a strong work ethic (Levine-Rasky 2016). As the privileges of whiteness grew greater, the desire of individuals to be included within this group became stronger.

The boundaries of whiteness have been vigorously policed by a variety of American institutions. López (2006; originally published in 1996) provides a compelling account of the ways in which racial categories have been constructed by social institutions, especially the law, in the face of individual pressure for inclusion. In addition to legal measures, “white” has also been a subject of contestation in educational institutions, neighborhoods, social organizations, government policy, the media, and innumerable personal interactions in daily life. As Jacobson (1999) has demonstrated, the racialization of Jews is a particularly illustrative example of the ways in which whiteness is articulated and policed and, ultimately, of how malleable it is. While anti-Semitic movements and ideologies are still evident in contemporary America, Jews’ identification as white is assumed by all but the most extreme white supremacists. Yet there was a time less than a century ago when Jews were often considered to be non-white. One example of the discriminatory treatment that Jews received during that time comes from elite colleges and universities that had quotas designed to restrict the number of Jewish matriculates (Karabel 2005). Jewish fraternities arose in response to the exclusion of Jews from white social organizations (Sanua 2018). And restrictive covenants prevented Jews from buying homes in a number of neighborhoods throughout the country (Brooks and Rose 2013).

To many, these structural impediments to the economic and social opportunities of Jews might seem surprising. The fact that they are surprising is testament to the shifting boundaries of whiteness. But, while these boundaries may have shifted, one fact remains constant: whiteness is a definitive mark of privilege. Individuals and groups have fought bitterly for inclusion in the category of “white” for precisely this reason.

The whiteness that so many have striven to obtain has multiple manifestations. Perhaps the most important is the aforementioned privilege attached to this category. Ultimately, whiteness manifests itself in all circumstances as privilege, even if individuals may not view it as such. As critical race theorists note, “racial stratification is ordinary, ubiquitous, and reproduced in mundane and extraordinary customs and experience” (Brown 2008: 54). The privilege of whiteness is so interwoven with the “normal” functioning of institutions and the character of interactions that it is often noticed only in cases of rupture of the ordinary, for example when white supremacists use a racial slur. However, the power and privilege of whiteness do not require that overt racism survive; rather, advantages accrue to whites because the economic, political and social institutions of America have long been designed to secure white dominance. This may take the form of discrimination in lending, voter disenfranchisement, and a host of other ways that are not the product of individuals’ overt racism.

White identity is connected to privilege, as it is shaped in the set of social relations and interactions that are connected to white dominance. However, identity is typically formed at the individual level, so there is variation in the ways in which whites understand the meaning of their racial group membership. Some whites rarely think about their racial identity and may in fact believe that they have no race; this belief is, itself, a form of identity. Some whites may feel strongly attached to being white, either from a sense of pride (which can be connected to white supremacist affiliations) or from a sense of guilt (which can spur some whites down the path of anti-racist activism). White identity is important to understand, as it is connected to a host of political and social behaviors.

For example, attitudes toward non-white racial groups, immigration, and criminal justice policies can be influenced by white identity. In general, whites are more likely to be punitive toward those caught in the criminal justice system on the offending side, and they are also more likely to be opposed to immigration. Some of the attitudes whites hold toward non-whites—especially blacks and Latinos/as—are related to feelings of threat in front of a perceived loss of status and control (Craig and Richeson 2014b). In general, familiarity with white attitudes can provide the basis for understanding white behavior; changing attitudes can change actions, which in turn can reduce the ways in which whites act to maintain their privilege. In some cases, whites’ attitudes can lead them to affiliate with social movements that are designed to extend, secure, or challenge the benefits of whiteness. Some of the organiz­ations that will be discussed later, such as the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and the liberal Center for a Fair Economy, are motivated by different dimensions of whiteness to shape their policies and actions.

Discussions of race and privilege can founder on notions that privilege is roughly equivalent to being rich—that privilege is an outcome rather than a structural position. This understanding of privilege suggests that there is no connection between race and privilege—that any group is equally able to make money through hard work and good choices. In addition, those adopting an individual-level understanding of race and privilege might point to the many whites who are not economically advantaged but have to struggle through their daily lives. How could such struggles possibly indicate privilege? However, privilege is much broader than simply a reflection of one’s income (Kimmel and Ferber 2009). Whites are advantaged over non-whites in myriad ways that apply to all whites, not just to those with a lot of money and education. It is important to note that whites are privileged relatively to non-whites not merely through the direct benefits of whiteness, but also through its function as a category of structural power and control. Regardless of the personal difficulties that an individual white person might experience, he or she is, ultimately, the beneficiary of his or her group’s dominant status. Access to resources and opportunities is substantially greater for members of the dominant group even if specific individuals are unable to take advantage of it. Just as all citizens of the United States benefit from the superior military defense of the nation when it comes to being protected from invasion, all whites benefit from the superior structural position of their group when it comes to the types of systematic advantage that this position grants them.

The benefits of structural advantage are often understood in monetary terms: whites make more money and have more wealth than blacks or Latinos/as. Thinking about racial advantage in terms of money is illuminating, but it can encourage people to explain away class differences as attached to individual-level characteristics—a strong work ethic or high intelligence, for instance. Evidence suggests that the source of racial advantage need not rest with the individual at all. For example, Royster’s (2003) study of racial differences in the social networks that help workers secure employment shows that whites have advantages over blacks without even trying. Whites refer friends for jobs, and the racial segregation of many friendship groups means that white people’s friends are typically white. Even in a group of similarly trained, similarly skilled black and white working-class men who graduated from the same high school in Baltimore, whites had higher status jobs and shorter periods of unemployment. This racial difference in work opportunities was due almost exclusively to the different informal networks to which black and white men had access (Royster 2003).

Social networks are not the only structural factor creating the advantages of whiteness. Home ownership is the primary source of wealth for most Americans (Krivo and Kaufman 2004), and homes in majority black neighborhoods are likely to be devalued by comparison to homes in white-dominated neighborhoods—even after holding other housing and community characteristics constant (Perry, Rothwell, and Harshbarger 2018). In addition, blacks are less likely to have access to loans or gifts from family members that could help them make a down payment on a home. At every step of the home-buying process—from finding a real estate agent through having a mortgage application evaluated to closing the sale—they are victims of stereotypes and discrimination that give whites unfair access to resources and space (Korver-Glenn 2018). Delays in stepping into home ownership, coupled with slowly increasing (or even decreasing) property values, can make an initially small (or relatively small) racial gap in wealth between a white and a black individual become a huge difference by the end of life. This disadvantage is transmitted to the next generation and can accumulate throughout time even without any active discrimination.

Other forms of the structural advantage of whiteness are manifested in more subtle ways. The social burden of dealing with discrimination and reduced opportunities takes a toll on the health and well-being of many non-white groups. African Americans in particular have lower life expectancies than whites, even after controlling for social class (Franks et al. 2006). In and of itself, the process of dealing with the stress of increased scrutiny and lowered expectations can result in an increased likelihood of a host of medical conditions such as heart disease and depression. The fact that more blacks are concentrated in low-income groups that tend to live shorter lives than the affluent explains some health discrepancies, but there is also an independent contribution of race to health outcomes. For example, blacks who live in relatively affluent neighborhoods and suffer a heart attack live for fewer years afterwards than do whites who live in relatively affluent neighborhoods (Bucholz et al. 2015).

While these structural advantages of whiteness are fundamental, racial identity is also important to individuals’ conceptualization and understanding of themselves; it is a substantial component of whiteness. “Whiteness” and “white identity” can be used somewhat interchangeably, although identity refers more precisely to a conceptualization of race that centers on an individual, while whiteness encompasses the broader racialization of structures, culture, and institutions that manifest white racial privilege and expression. Identity, in other words, is how we (and others) think about our own relationship to racial categories, while whiteness is a broader concept, which includes both individual and societal racial definitions and processes.

Psychological as well as social benefits can be attached to racial identification. White identities—even when not consciously assimilated—can make individuals feel that they are normal and unremarkable. White identity facilitates other, non-racial identities to take on greater importance in white people’s lives. For example gender, sexual orientation, religion, political party, and region of residence are given the space to be prominent features of individuals’ lives. For many blacks, Latinos/as, American Indians, and Asians, on the other hand, racial identity is linked so prominently to daily experiences that it can be a near-totalizing component of their broader identity. Non-white identities need not be negative, however. People who do not identify as white can have a sense of pride and enhanced self-esteem as a result of their racial identities (Hughes et al. 2015).

While racial identity manifests itself differently not only among different subgroups of whites, it can do so for the same individual, over time. Knowing how whites understand what their racial identification means to them is important for a host of reasons. Self-identification with any group influences the ways in which we view the world and our place in it. It also influences the ways in which we treat members of other groups. Even when identity remains unacknowledged, it is nonetheless implicit, as individuals explicitly exclude themselves from other identities. For example, even though a middle-class white individual living in a racially homogenous neighborhood might explicitly identify as white only on rare occasions, such as when filling out a survey form (Martin et al. 1999) or a job application, their white identity is always implicit in their conceptualization of themselves as “not black” or “not Latino/a.”

It is important to think about the different ways in which white racial identity manifests itself across the broad, eclectic spectrum of those considered (by themselves and by others) “white.” By categorizing different understandings and experiences of whiteness, we can not only gain a deeper appreciation of racial self-awareness but also make linkages between forms of identity and social and political behavior. It is easy to be baffled by sudden acts of racial violence or by white assertions of superiority, especially as they coexist with white anti-racist activism and a desire to “save” poor blacks and Latinos/as from their difficult circumstances. What leads people to mobilize their racial identities in such different ways? Why aren’t all white people alike?

There are a range of answers to these questions. Social class, geography, social context, and degree of contact with non-whites all influence white racial identity. It is especially important to think about the ways in which the contexts and the statuses of others affect whiteness, as these ways demonstrate that whiteness is not a “natural, unchangeable phenomenon” (Alcoff 2015: 74). Contexts such as neighborhood choice not only are influenced by white identity but also shape it (Alcoff 2015). For example, whites who live in majority non-white neighborhoods or work in majority non-white settings will be routinely reminded of their whiteness, as it makes them stand in opposition to those with whom they frequently interact. In such settings, interactions between whites and non-whites can have a multilayered quality, shaped by class and spatial factors as they intersect with abstract understandings of race (Hartigan 1997). The same would be true of whites married to non-whites. White racial awareness will most likely be much greater among them than among the many whites who work, attend school and live in primarily white settings. Vasquez (2014) refers to this awareness as “racial cognizance,” a perspective that not only entails an awareness of white identity but also is explicitly aware of racial inequality. In the case of whites married to Latinos/as, the awareness of whiteness is generated not only by the continual contrasting racial classifications of those in one’s immediate environment, but also by the incidence of witnessing instances of discrimination against family members (Vasquez 2014).

Whiteness manifests itself differently in different regions of the country, racial identity often being experienced differently in the South and in the Southwest, for example. In addition, rural whites can have a different understanding of what it means to be white—different, that is, from that of urban or suburban dwellers. In part, this is a result of exposure to non-whites; many rural areas, especially those outside the South, tend to be racially isolated. Even though suburbs can be just as isolated, many residents commute to cities that have larger, often visible non-white populations. Regionally, the non-white groups that predominate can be quite different; thus whites might be counterpoised to American Indians in the Plains states, to Latinos/as in the Southwest and in the West, to Asians in the West, and to blacks in the South, Northeast, and Midwest. Owing to the association that many whites make between Latinos/as and Asians and immigration status and that prompts them to “over-include” devalued groups within the immigrant category (Kosic and Phalet 2006), whites in the West and Southwest who interact with large Asian and Latino/a populations there might attach a nativist or nationalist meaning to whiteness. Whites in the South have a very long history of living with a rigid racial dichotomy between whites and blacks that has structured every aspect of daily life. It is reasonable to expect vestiges of this rigid dichotomy to set strong boundaries around whiteness today.

Important contextual effects that vary across cities—such as demographics, segregation, or inequality—can also vary across neighborhoods within a single city. Doering’s (2015) study of “positive loiterers”—whites who congregate in public in order to deter people from criminal activity—shows that whites located in multiracial contexts have a visibility to their whiteness that others—whites in homogenous neighborhoods, or in less public settings—do not. The ways in which these whites navigate their identities varies. One group anticipated racial challenges and engaged with critics, while another isolated itself from blacks in the neighborhood and dismissed those who confronted it. These cases point to the importance of context in shaping expressions of whiteness (Doering 2015).

Although context is certainly important in shaping white identities, the reach of whiteness transcends the particular and is both the cause and the consequence of the larger structural forces that shape identities. While it might seem unusual to assert that an identity can change a structural force, political and economic conditions can be reinforced, or even transformed, by the patterned behaviors of whites as they enact their identities. For example, white superiority can facilitate the passage of legislation that results in the criminalization or disenfranchisement of non-whites. This legislation, in turn, can solidify, or even generate, whites’ feelings of moral superiority over other racial groups. So, too, can broader patterns of residential segregation influence whiteness. For example, racial segregation can mitigate against positive attitudes to immigration among whites (Rocha and Espino 2009). Similarly, racially homogenous neighborhoods can undergird a sense of having rights to certain areas, which are then thought to exist primarily for whites. These perceived rights can prompt white residents to call the police on a black pedestrian in “their” neighborhood. The white identities that emerge from these patterns of segregation and their corresponding behaviors, in turn, reify racialized neighborhood boundaries and have a cascading effect on the segregation of other institutions such as schools.

Colorblind identities such as those generated by racially homogenous neighborhoods are reflected in whites’ inability to see their own race as an important factor in their lives. Race is instead thought to be a characteristic that non-whites have; whites simply do not think of themselves as having a race at all. One of the reasons why whiteness often goes unremarked is the widely held assumption that “white” is the norm—the default racial category in America. This reality is generated by a long history of white racial dominance, in which whites have controlled institutions, shaped the culture, and enforced their power through a variety of mechanisms. As a result, they have been in a position to defend their rights and power by drawing boundaries around their group, such that white became the norm and all other groups fell outside of the norm. The invisibility of whiteness is such that the privilege it involves is often hidden from view—it seems like the natural order of things. This invisibility of whiteness is especially common among whites in racially homogenous settings: when white is the norm and no stimulus is activating racial identity, one’s own race is seen as a non-factor. Given the high degree of residential and educational segregation in the United States, this experience of whiteness is, indeed, the “norm.”

As discussed earlier, privilege refers to the often unseen benefits of occupying a structurally rewarded position in society such as being white, or male, or heterosexual. The benefits of privilege are many, ranging from a greater likelihood of earning extra income to a greater likelihood of getting away with shoplifting than those without privilege. The very category of “white” is based on the existence of privilege in relation to people of color. The boundaries of whiteness have reflected a history of groups striving for inclusion in the category of “white” and the corresponding high status and resources that being white bestows (Roediger 1991). To be white is to have the opportunity to be included in the civic, political and economic life of the nation. White is the default category against which other racial and ethnic groups are measured. Yet few of those within this category see their racial experience as anything but the norm; it is the others whom they regard as different.

Among the first to observe this power of whiteness in America was the sociologist W. E. B. DuBois. In The Souls of White Folk, DuBois noted that the overt racial dominance claimed by the white race ultimately came to manifest itself in subtler ways, as the notion that all that is right, good, and powerful equals white came to be taken for granted.

How easy … by emphasis and omission to make children believe that every great soul the world ever saw was a white man’s soul; that every great thought the world ever knew was a white man’s thought; that every great deed the world ever did was a white man’s deed; that every great dream the world ever sang was a white man’s dream. (DuBois 1996: 498)

The books and lessons children of all races receive have been filled with white faces, the images representing America are white faces (such as that of Uncle Sam), and “white” is rarely used as a racial descriptor. One hears of a “black scientist” or a “Mexican actor” but not of a white scientist or white actor—the whiteness of scientists and actors is often simply assumed.

However, some whites have a strong sense of their own racial identity. Rather than assuming that they are simply people without any race, they are instead acutely aware of the role that whiteness plays in their lives. White identity can actually have a negative impact on individuals’ sense of self. For example, poor and working-class whites can be negatively affected by their racial identity when they are judged harshly by others for not capitalizing on the socioeconomic benefits of whiteness (Hartigan 1999; McDermott 2006). Indeed, social class can have a major impact on how whites understand their racial identities. The stigma of poverty attaches to every low-income person regardless of race, but poor whites must deal with an additional judgment. Since whiteness is associated with affluence and privilege, poor whites are often seen as being especially damaged or defective. If they were “real” whites, who work hard and are intelligent, they would have moved up and out of poverty. Whites are effectively seen as having no excuse for being poor, since their skin color should have guaranteed better socioeconomic outcomes (McDermott 2006). The combined stigma against poor whites is so prevalent that a special term—“white trash”—has emerged to dismiss and malign whites with little money or education.

Whites can feel stigmatized for their white identity from a quite different source—one not related to social class directly. As mentioned previously, “white guilt” can manifest itself when individuals confront the reality of their privilege and are aware of the undeserved advantages it has brought and continues to bring in their lives. Despite there being no mismatch between their socioeconomic status and their racial identity, these whites nonetheless attach a negative valence to the latter. Especially among non-whites and among white anti-racist activists, whiteness itself can be an inherently stigmatized identity. Some anti-racist activists actually engage in strategies in order to embrace this stigma (Hughey 2012a). The mixed-race women that Storrs (1999) interviewed took the opposite approach; although all the women had white ancestry, they were disgusted by whiteness as “oppressive, patriarchal and discriminatory” (Storrs 1999: 196).

At the same time, whiteness can be embraced as a marker of difference, a marker that many bitterly fight to keep distinctive. The construction of this difference extends back to the earliest period of European colonization of the United States, when it was a marker of status and power. While whiteness is often invisible to those who consider themselves whites, it is not always the case that it goes unnoticed. For example blacks, Latinos/as, American Indians and Asians often notice whiteness; for many of them, successfully negotiating the social and institutional worlds of America requires recognizing whiteness so as to avoid negative outcomes. But whites, too, are sometimes cognizant of their racial identity. When confronted with a perceived threat to their racial advantages—such as blacks moving into a white majority neighborhood—whites may consciously mobilize on the basis of race, in order to organize resistance to neighborhood change.

Such neighborhood characteristics, which influence white racial identity, are fairly stable, but the meanings of whiteness can also be shaped by the specific settings in which whites interact with others. For example, the mentioning of racialized issues such as crime, schools, and neighborhoods can heighten awareness of whiteness even if no other non-whites are present. This awareness can take the form of superiority or defensiveness, as whites become conscious of threats to their status or reinforcements of their dominant position in society. For example, whites who are prompted to think about or discuss the racial composition of neighborhoods or schools might feel threatened by the changing demographics of the US, worrying that white spaces and institutions are changing to be less the province of whites (Craig and Richeson 2014a). Alternatively, contexts in which crime is discussed might arouse in whites a sense of superiority over blacks and Latinos/as: in these contexts whiteness can be stereotypically equated with law-abiding, pro-social behavior, in direct contrast to the presumed criminal behavior of blacks and Latinos/as. It need not matter, for this experience of white racial identity, what the actual association between race and crime is; it is rather the perceptions and the attitudes that have such a powerful impact.

Some whites become so conscious of their whiteness that they actually seek to transcend it, to identify with an entirely different race. Some whites feel guilty about the unearned privileges they have and consciously try to counteract these advantages by affiliating themselves with non-whites, or by participating in anti-racist efforts. Others, who had long thought of themselves as white (and whom others thought of as white), “discover,” by taking a DNA test, that they are not white at all. The presence of American Indian or African origin DNA sometimes prompts such whites to leave their old race behind and adopt a new identity (Roth and Ivemark 2018), thus transcending their whiteness (although not their white privilege).

Regardless of whether white people’s identities are colorblind, stigmatized, defensive, or transcendent, these people’s ways of thinking about themselves shape their attitudes toward other racial groups. However, the connection between identities and attitudes is not straightforward. Among people who identify as white, it is not the case that those who are most likely to acknowledge that their white identity is important to them are the most (or the least) racist groups of whites. Instead, the ways in which whites think about the meaning of whiteness influences their orientations toward other groups. For example, an individual who does not consider his or her whiteness to be symbolic of anything and goes through life blissfully unaware of his or her own race is unlikely to understand the profound influence of race on the daily lives of many non-whites. On the other hand, an individual who fully embraces the social dominance associated with whiteness is much more likely to assert his or her identity as a mark of superiority, or even supremacy. Whites who acknowledge their social dominance and still find it problematic can engage in anti-racist activism or paternalistic behavior toward non-whites. In Chapter 4 there will be a review of the identity–attitude connection in survey responses, discussing how whites who have a strong sense of their identity are among both the most and the least likely to have positive attitudes toward blacks.

Attitudes expressed in survey data are only one way of measuring how whites understand the world around them. Whiteness is expressed culturally as well. If one thinks of culture as patterned behaviors and preferences, it can be a useful vehicle for understanding the relationship between structure and identity. While we often associate culture with forms such as music and film, it also applies to styles of relating to others, for instance to speech and dress, or to ways in which people enact their goals. The extent to which there is a “white” culture has been debated. Certain musical forms, such as country and, to a lesser extent, classical music, have been deemed to be a part of white culture on the basis of the themes and styles of their production as well as of the demographics of its audiences. More troubling, white supremacist groups have extolled the virtues and achievements of European culture as a reflection of the greatness of “white culture” (Dentice and Bugg 2016).

Different cultures can also be expressed within social movements that go well beyond a set of preferences and patterned behaviors. Such movements are goal-oriented, organized institutional forms, which can serve as bases for the realization of the interests of dominant groups such as whites. In some cases, such as that of the Ku Klux Klan, these goals are pursued through violence. In others, the attempted realization of the goals that serve white interests is non-violent and the articulation of whiteness’s role within the movement is subtler. Such organized movements can lay bare the ways in which whiteness is a major actor in the political and social arenas in America today.

Movements organized around racial goals are likely to become increasingly prevalent as the demographic changes occurring in the US continue. The white population is becoming a smaller part of the overall American population, with Latinos/as in particular making up a larger proportion. By the mid-century, whites are predicted to represent a minority of the country’s population. Much of this growth in the non-white population is fueled by immigration, although a not inconsiderable amount is also generated by a rapidly increasing multiracial population. Depending on the extent to which multiracial individuals and members of some immigrant groups racially identify as white in the future, the white population might not be declining that much, after all (Alba 2016). Just as the boundaries of whiteness expanded in the early twentieth century to include Jews, Italians and other European immigrants who were considered not quite white, so too might groups currently considered non-white be regarded as white in the near future. Alternatively, however, Fox and Guglielmo (2012) argue that European immigrants were never actually outside the white racial boundary; their experience, therefore, has little to tell us about the future white racialization of other groups.

In general, the story of whiteness is both one of structures of oppression that extend back to the founding of America and one of a rapidly changing set of complex identities, which lead simultaneously to conflict and cooperation in contemporary life. In order to understand the ways in which these rigid structures and complicated perceptions permeate American life, we must examine some of the many meanings of what it is to be white—including the racial privilege inherent to them all.

The rest of the book discusses the various manifestations and implications of whiteness in America. Chapter 2 presents the concept of “invisible privilege.” As mentioned earlier, many whites are unaware of how they benefit from their whiteness. How does this happen? The chapter describes the origins of beliefs about race and racial identity among whites by reviewing some of the ways in which white children learn about race. While most children are not directly instructed about the meaning of whiteness, they absorb many messages from their parents and from their school environments. They carry these messages into adulthood, where they apply the lessons to their own understandings of American society as basically “colorblind,” a place where race holds little relevance. Colorblindness often masquerades as a seemingly desirable belief about every individual being like every other individual, but this universalist belief actually hides a dismissal of the importance of racism in the lives of non-whites. If we are all the same and we all have equal chances to get ahead, then non-whites can be assumed to deserve having lower incomes and a lower educational attainment. “Not seeing color” can mean not seeing inequality. Finally, Chapter 2 reviews the concept of “hegemonic whiteness.” The theory behind this concept points out the ways in which whiteness is interwoven throughout American society such that it is not noticed. Furthermore, the use of whiteness to negatively influence the lives of most Americans—including many whites—is often accepted as a part of “normal” society.

While invisible whiteness is an important and perhaps dominant form of whiteness, Chapter 3 discusses the ways in which whiteness can be visible. In certain places and situations, whites are quite aware of their racial identity. One example of visible whiteness is that of stigmatized whites. These are individuals who have one or more characteristics that reflect a relative lack of power or standing. For example, the case of poor whites discussed earlier involves people who are both privileged through their whiteness and disadvantaged through their class status. Since one stereotype of whites is that they are affluent and successful, the racial status of poor whites tends to get highlighted: such people tend to be seen as not living up to their racial standing. They may be thought to have done something to deserve their poverty, since discrimination would not be to blame. It is not only to stigmatized whites that race is salient, however. Sometimes whites assert their racial privilege in a way that makes their identity salient to themselves and others. Whites who organize in order to keep non-whites out of the neighborhoods they live in are consciously exercising their racial privilege rather than living their lives in an entirely colorblind fashion. Finally, some whites actually try to abandon their white identity, claiming to have an entirely different racial background. The widespread adoption of DNA testing has increased the number of whites who, in the light of new information, think of themselves as belonging to other racial groups. Other whites are sharply aware of their white privilege and attempt to change its meaning. In all the cases discussed in Chapter 3, white racial identity is salient, not hidden.

Chapter 4 presents some of the ways in which whiteness influences attitudes on a range of topics. It also discusses the influence of culture on experiences with and the diffusion of whiteness. Patterned beliefs and practices not only are a result of white identity; they also shape it. Several different theories of white racial attitudes engage with the ways in which whiteness symbolizes a sense of cultural superiority, as well as with the role played by the degree of possessiveness expressed by whites in the face of perceived political and economic threats. White attitudes are not limited to whites’ thinking about race, however. Whites are also unique in their support for the harsh treatment of those arrested and incarcerated—attitudes that a number of scholars have demonstrated are racialized. The cultural practices of whites diverge in some cases from the practices of other groups. While this occurs in a variety of dimensions, one example that will be discussed is that of country music.

Chapter 5 discusses the ways in which white identity and privilege are mobilized. Often, when Americans think about the ways in which white people join social movements to further the interests of their race, they think about white supremacist movements. The Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other supremacist groups are indeed important organizations to understand. However, there are other ways in which whiteness is connected to whites’ involvement in social movements. Some organizations, such as the Tea Party movement, comprise a large majority of white members. More importantly, however, their goals would secure white privilege. Such goals include policies about taxation and social welfare programs that would disproportionately harm non-whites and, relatedly, benefit whites. Movements in which whiteness is an organizing principle need not be politically conservative, however. Organizations that are predicated upon anti-racism and upon attempts to subvert white privilege are also examples of whiteness mobilized.

Finally, Chapter 6 discusses the future of white racial identity. The demographic shifts that occur in America are likely to have profound implications on racial attitudes and identities. Whites (as currently defined) are soon to become a minority of the United States population; they are already a minority among the young population up to the age of 15 (Frey 2019). What will happen to whiteness when whites are no longer in the majority? Perhaps nothing—or perhaps there will be a strong shift in whites’ attitudes and behaviors if they perceive their privileged position in society to be threatened. One form this may take would be for whites to draw even stronger boundaries around whiteness than the ones that currently exist. Such attempts could mirror and replicate, for instance, the behavior of native-born whites in America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when waves of European immigrants from places such as Ireland and Italy were not considered fully “white.” Alternatively, whites may erect weaker boundaries around their whiteness. In an attempt to maintain majority status, they may consider relabeling “white” groups that are currently “honorary whites,” such as some Asians and Latinos/as. Finally, this chapter seeks to address the question: “Is there an ideal form of whiteness?” If a white individual were to care about the privilege and history of oppression that is associated with his or her identity, how might that person go about thinking and acting in ways that consciously challenge white privilege? While the connection between whiteness and privilege is not erasable, appreciating this connection and its many manifestations is a positive alternative to the passive acceptance of white racial dominance.