Paul Carr

The Epistemology of Whiteness in a Sea of Color: Confronting Power and Privilge in Education

Entrelugares (2009)

I've Read This

The epistemology of Whiteness in a sea of color: Confronting power and privilege in education1 Paul Carr Introduction

Is it relevant if I say that I am White? Will that change the understanding, perspective and appreciation of the reader (McLaren, 2007)? Is there such a thing as White racial origin (Fine, Weis, Powell Pruitt, & Burns, 2004)? Has the world not moved forward to a post-modern color-blindness? Does race matter? Does the context for discussing race change in relation to spatial, relational, historic and sociopolitical circumstances (Willinsky, 1998)? How should White people consider their racial identity? Is there a normative, universal underpinning to Whiteness (Sullivan, 2006)? What is White power and privilege? What is the role of educators and education in countering the effects of Whiteness? Can a debate on Whites take place when clearly Whites have been instrumental in shaping power, history and exploitation, thus potentially leading to defensive postures, shame, guilt and anger (McIntosh, 1992)? In other words, why would Whites willingly entertain a discussion about something that might effectively destabilize their power base? What are the implications of not discussing Whiteness (Dei, Karumanchery, & Karumanchery-Luik, 2004)? Is there an epistemology2 of Whiteness that inhibits meaningful action in relation to intercultural relations?

These introductory questions provide an entry-point into the focus of this paper—Whiteness as power, privilege and identity—, which aims to argue that, for there to be meaningful social justice, it is critical that Whiteness be understood and, importantly, addressed by society, especially by Whites themselves. The context for this discussion is I book I co-edited with Darren Lund of the University of Calgary, who is also White, entitled The Great White North? Examining Whiteness privilege and identity in education (Carr & Lund, 2007b), published by Sense Publishers. As the title suggests, the book deals directly with Whiteness, which is somewhat of a milestone for a Canadian project. Although a few other Canadian books have ventured into the theme of Whiteness (Dei, Karumanchery, & Karumanchery-Luik, 2004; Razack, 1998), this is the first collection of critical essays exclusively on the subject. With some two dozen Canadian scholars from across the country writing about and contextualizing their experiences with Whiteness within an educational

context, the eighteen chapters of the book collectively constitute a plea for a more multi-textured analysis of the diverse ways in which Whiteness pervades society, Canadian as well as others.

The paper draws on portions of The Great White North? Examining Whiteness privilege and identity in education to illustrate the salience of Whiteness, and also to elucidate some strategies for countering racism and the silencing of debate around race and racialization. Also discussed is political literacy (Davis & Hogarth, 2004; Giroux, 1988; Provenzo, 2005) and critical pedagogy (Shor, 1997; McLaren, 2007), which are pivotal concerns in the debate over Whiteness, and can also be instrumental in leading to transformational change in education. Finally, the paper questions the epistemology of Whiteness, and the sanctity of knowledge that is commonly accepted as truth or fact, encouraging us to question the meaning of White power and privilege.

Defining Whiteness

In the introductory chapter of the book, Lund and I (Carr & Lund, 2007a) lay out the argument for focusing on Whiteness, emphasizing the following:

•

Cultural conventions, literature (Babb, 1998), art and societal “metaphors, analogies, images, and cultural landmarks (that) all speak to the sanctity, beauty, and the hypnotic predominance of the colour white in the Western world. Not merely the opposite of black, white has been a signifier for global racial supremacy—good over against evil, lightness symbolizes versus darkness, and

benevolence

malevolence—and

cleanliness,

kindness,

serenity, and youth. White is associated with Europe the conqueror, while Black is inexorably fused to colonial notions of the ‘dark continent’ of Africa.” (Carr & Lund, 2007a: p. 9) • There has been a long and virulent history of hate groups in North America (Kinsella, 2001; Daniels, 1997), with different manifestations elsewhere, which have emphasized erroneous notions of biological racial superiority, often based on xenophobic interpretations of Christianity, to justify violence and segregation against non-Whites. • “Slavery, colonialism of First Nations and other peoples, neo-colonialism,

imperialism, and a host of other political, economic, and cultural strategic maneuvers and mindsets have all been buttressed by the grandiose conceptualization of the White man as morally enlightened.” (Carr & Lund, 2007a: p. 9) • The most abhorrent forms of human degradation perpetrated by Whites against “people of color”, especially Aboriginals (Churchill, 1998) and Africans, have permanently scarred the human experience, and also, significantly, led to what has been characterized as the colonization of the mind (Dei & Kempf, 2006). • There have been numerous examples of White power and privilege in Canadian history pertaining to racist immigration policies toward the Chinese, the internment of Japanese-Canadians during World War Two, the razing of the African-Canadian section of Halifax (Nelson, 2002), and numerous other visible acts that have served to institutionalize discrimination with Canadian society (Henry & Tator, 2005). • It is acknowledged that grasping with Whiteness is equally complex and problematic, and that many Whites may refute the very notion because they perceive no real advantage to being White (McIntosh. 1992), especially in light of longstanding conflicts between White racial groups (i.e., the French and the English in Canada, Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Basques and the Spanish in Spain, and numerous other conflicts in Eastern Europe). • The pervasive notions of meritocracy, individualism and a belief in political neutrality underpin an ideology of “color-blindness,” making it unacceptable for many to consider race as a meaningful concept in society (Carr, 2006; Dei, Karumanchery, & Karumanchery-Luik, 2004). Yet, there is documented racism at multiple levels, and avoiding acknowledgement of this fact can lead to more entrenched discrimination. • The obvious manifestations of racism in contemporary society, such as academic under-achievement for some minorities, under-representation of “people of color”3 at the highest levels of government, business, the judiciary, the media, and key decision-making levels, higher rates of incarceration and poverty for Aboriginals and African-Canadians, employment disadvantage despite higher levels of education for minorities, housing segregation, and a plethora of human rights issues, all point to the widespread influence of

Whiteness (Fleras & Elliot, 2003; Boyko, 1998). • Whiteness is still exemplified through intricate networks of social interaction, restrictive clubs, private schools, elite business circles, and other

configurations that effectively keep people of color on the outside, explicitly or implicitly, overtly or covertly (Kincheloe, Steinberg, Rodriguez & Chennault, 1998). • For many Whites the notion of inter-racial marriage is still taboo, and one can also see racial segregation on the day of worship where Churches remain largely segregated, exemplifying the stark reality of supposed “colorblindness” in multicultural nations like Canada.

It is important to acknowledge my own professional, academic and personal experience and identity in order to reconcile and fully come to grips with Whiteness. I have written about Whiteness and educational policymaking (Carr, 2006), which examines the myriad ways that the power and privilege of White people is continually reinforced, all the while giving the impression that the educational system, decisionmaking processes and other significant institutional concerns are neutral, apolitical and meritocratic. The subtlety, the nuanced, textured environment, and the multitude of factors that coalesce to ensure that Whiteness cannot be questioned are all integral parts of the educational framework buttressing the debate on what can be discussed, how, where, with whom, and in what context (Fine, Weis, Powell Pruitt, & Burns, 2004).

This brief overview does not presume to infer that important social issues can always clearly dissected on the basis of racial lines. The intersectionality of identity and marginalization effectively plays a role in defining lived experience. Similarly, the degree of power and privilege of Whites can vacillate over time according the context (Dei, 1996). Many Whites may not wish to recognize Whiteness because of the many challenges and hardships they face in trying to survive within a political and economic system that has traditionally worked against the interests of the working class. For this reason, especially within the context of neo-liberalism (Hill, 2003), political literacy is fundamental to addressing Whiteness (McLaren, 2007). Neoliberalism is relevant because of the numerous forces imbued in it that push people toward the marketization of society, including education, which places increasing value on privatization, individualism, competition, and profit rather than on human

rights, social justice, democracy and citizenship (Hursch & Martina, 2003; Martinez & Garcia, 1996; Tabb, 2001).

George J. Sefa Dei, who is originally from Ghana and has been teaching at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education for almost two decades, is recognized internationally for his work on anti-racism education. Dei (1996, 1998, 2003) problematizes race in his work, and underscores its salience while also recognizing the social construction and intersectionality of identity. Dei (2007) does not mince his words about the pervasive and insidious nature of Whiteness.

My own work in Canadian schools and the academy, in general, has pointed to the politics and denial of race and difference even as race and racism stare us in the face. As racialized/minoritized students articulate their concerns about racism I have also encountered the denial and silencing that many others have often embarked upon, not simply to protect their privileges, but to mask any sense of complicity and responsibility for social oppression. What I have found over time, and one reason this book is such a timely and necessary addition to the literature on racism and racialization, is that many of the people most imbued with its orchestration and manifestation, namely White people, maintain the power and privilege to ignore and dissociate themselves from the experiences of others who are more directly affected or marginalized by racism. (p. 3)

Dei continues by stating that Whites must see themselves as part of the debate on race, racism, and racialization if society is to make progress in achieving equity and social justice.

It is destabilizing, troublesome, and problematic to hear White people vigorously refute the notion that there is racism in society. We see this in Canada in many ways, and in education we have long heard of the de facto policy of “colour-blindness.” Many people of good will, however, have become engaged in trying to make for a better society, but many others challenge the foundation and legacy of racism. The fact that most of the decision-makers are White, and that it is these people who control the funding, laws, programs, and policies, means that it is often an uphill battle just to get racism formally identified as a concern. (p. 3)

Emphasizing how normative values and cultural conventions are infused within notions of Whiteness, Dei (2007) maintains that:

Whiteness is never invisible to those who daily live the effects of White dominance. Many Whites may see their Whiteness, and yet they are able to deny the dominance associated with it. This denial is not

unconscious, nor is it accidental; I believe it is deliberate. Critical antiracism maintains that we will only do away with racism when Whiteness no longer infers dominance and Whites acknowledge and work towards this end. (p. 5)

Ultimately, Whiteness is a transparent filter encasing our human experience, something that we cannot easily identify, understand or function without. People have often been conditioned to acknowledge that discrimination, especially racial, is so heinous that it is better not to examine how it takes shape and pervades the daily and historical interactions between individuals and groups. With the myth of multiculturalism and pluralistic harmony, a common belief infused in mainstream thinking is that it is advantageous to be “color-blind” (James, 2003; Jensen, 2005; Thompson, 2003). To be sure, Whiteness far surpasses the superficial notion of racism being an individual problem or a comment made by one person. Rather, it concerns the rampant and viscerally inter-twined decisions, policies, programs, processes, interactions and movements that frame the social condition (Carr, 2006; Razack, 1988). Whiteness is difficult to name, it involves power and privilege, it is a fundamental piece to the epistemological make-up of people, and there is enormous resistance, particularly by Whites, to critiquing its very existence (Dei,

Karumanchery, & Karumanchery-Luik, 2004).

Elaborating an analysis of Whiteness in education

The book includes a range of chapters that analyze and dissect Whiteness from a variety of vantage-points and disciplines from White and non-White male and female scholars and activists from across the country. The diversity of contributors was an important consideration when pulling together the book because the principle aim was to understand the multiple ways that Whiteness invents, sustains and infuses itself into the social fabric and, particularly, into education. A specific and unabashedly visible feature to the book is that authors were asked to locate themselves in the research, and to identify how Whiteness affects or relates to their own experience. Rather than diminishing the “objectivity” of contributors, this proved to be an important asset in carving out the deeply personal relation that each of us has to Whiteness.

In editing the book, Lund and I felt that knowing people’s racial identity, approach, experience and perspective on Whiteness would help readers understand

that this is not a neutral, positivistic concept. The debate over the perception of shaping reality, validity, relevance and other methodological considerations,

therefore, needs to be contextualized and problematized. A volume with a wide range of voices, approaches, concerns and analysis is, we thought, fundamental to acquiring a sense of the elasticity of the phenomenon of Whiteness. It is relatively easy to discount Whiteness because that “was not my experience,” thus the idea of having a group of people write about Whiteness was cultivated in order to deflect comments and critiques that this is a somewhat unique, isolated and intangible experience.

Kathleen

Berry

(2007)

skillfully

documents

the

numerous

ways

that

Whiteness was infused into her childhood, notably through books, games, play, school activities and, importantly, in society rituals, with her family, at church, and around the dinner-table. She highlights the Euro-centric interplay between

Christianity and colonization, especially as she considered her own status as a White person with a disability. The unique perspective of having an intersectional identity (White with a disability) led her to question the essence of what is “normal”. She documents the common experience for Whites in North America of superficial encounters with “ethnic food,” in which the human contact is purposefully limited. Almost every small town has a Chinese restaurant, yet most people systematically avoid establishing meaningful relationships with the “other”. Berry forces us to question why normative values and concepts about Whiteness are not more readily refuted.

In North America, it is common currency to accept that “this is an Englishspeaking land,” notwithstanding the French-speaking identity, and that “this is a Christian country,” in spite of the fact that White people have been in here for only a few hundred years, a sliver of time compared to the thousands of years of heritage, culture, and attachment to the land that Aboriginal peoples have known (Churchill, 1998). How White people are able to discount the historical context of the First Nations behooves the human spirit, especially in light of the current debate on immigration. Who is an immigrant? Whites immigrated to North America, as they did to South America, and yet there is the generally-held image that an immigrant is a “person of color” who, ultimately, represents a threat because he or she will not be easily assimilated. An important question is: assimilated into what, by whom, how,

and to what end? Whites can potentially assimilate after a short time, as evidenced by the large number of Europeans who now identify as Canadian or American respectfully, but can non-Whites change, or discount, their skin color to be able to do so? Do “people of color” fly the proverbial patriotic flag as frequently and as easily as Whites? Could we imagine key institutions in society being dominated by nonWhites?

Further fleshing out how Whiteness is permeated into the normative, supposedly tranquil and charitable folk in Canadian (and US) society, Tim McCaskell (2007) provides a range of examples of how his life growing up in rural Ontario (the largest province, situated in the central part of the country) in the 1950s involved building, surreptitiously, White identity. He notes how he learned to distinguish between White Canadians of Protestant and Catholic origin, raising the historical cleavage between the English and French. As he puts it, the first “other” for him was White, and the distance placed between him and the non-White “other” was, therefore, almost insurmountable. Thus, the experience of many Canadians to surpass the rhetoric about being multicultural is marred with the crude reality of not knowing, understanding and interacting in any meaningful way with, for example, First Nations peoples (James, 2003). McCaskell contrasts the goodness he was taught within the Christian church with the visible disdain he could see, sense and experience in relation to how Whites treat and treated non-Whites. Over time, when we reflect on, and critical interrogate ourselves about our memories of what we think are harmonious relations between groups—the essence of interculturalism—we often find that power plays a substantial role in distancing the “other,” and, moreover, in supporting the belief that Whites are instinctively good.

One important theme explored in the book relates to the White experience with Aboriginal peoples, which meshes with the international context in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and elsewhere, as the struggle to undermine, diminish and erase the cultures, languages, traditions and identities of the latter is an unfortunate reality around the world. In a brilliant terminological assessment of Whiteness, Tracey Lindberg (2007), an Aboriginal scholar, refers to Whites as the “Second Peoples,” in juxtaposition to the First Nations. She makes the point that for an Aboriginal person to survive within a White institution, such as a university, one is often obliged to renounce one’s Aboriginal identity, thus further alienating Aboriginal

people and potentially deluding “majority”, dominant peoples into believing that there is equal opportunity in society when clearly the field is not level for all participants. Lindberg discusses the problematic and realpolitic of contesting Whiteness within White institutions, which concurrently positions minorities to ingratiate and support White values and also to be silent on the needs and experiences of non-Whites. She further asserts that the need to erase the Aboriginal experience from the collective memory of White society is constantly reinforced by myriad unwritten rules and conventions.

Complementing

Lindberg’s

analysis

are

two

chapters

White

male

academics pertaining to their experiences teaching Aboriginal students. James Frideres (2007) postulates that teaching Aboriginal students from a normative White approach only serves to further marginalize them, and affirms that:

White privilege is an institutional set of benefits granted to those who, by colour, resemble the people who dominate the powerful positions in our institutions and organizations. In turn, these become individual benefits. The system is not based on each individual White person’s intention to harm but on a racial groups’ determination to preserve what they believe is rightly theirs. (p. 6)

Herb Northcott (2007), in a similar analysis of the harm caused by Whites who teach Aboriginal students without modifying their pedagogy, summarized the racial dilemma in his course as follows:

Despite my attempts to remove Whiteness from this course, Whiteness remained. I, the “White guy,” was clearly responsible for the course, was the person who graded each essay, and assigned the students’ final grade…. The success of a course like this depends on disclosure by individual participants, and a willingness to examine issues publicly from a variety of perspectives. However, public discussion is constrained by political correctness, that is, by an awareness of the perspectives that are more or less acceptable in the local community…. Distance, in the form of Whiteness, is then both problematic and functional. (p. 7)

These authors (Frideras, 2007; Northcott, 2007) poignantly stress that the concern over how Whites do anti-racism work is a question that must be addressed, not avoided. How Whites are engaged especially with other Whites should also figure into the broader analysis of Whiteness.

From a social-psychological vantage-point, Julie Caouette and Donald Taylor (2007) unravel the impact of collective White guilt, especially in relation to contact with Aboriginal peoples. Their work reveals important insight into the problematic terrain of conducting research on Whiteness, and also questions the positionality of Whites as researchers. Ultimately, they conclude that there needs to be a “shift (in) focus from attributing blame and towards taking responsibility,” and, importantly, for there to be positive movement in race relations, that Whites acknowledge that they, indeed, are part of a racial group. This has been an elusive concept for many Whites as discussions of race have traditionally focused on “people of color,” a concept that implicitly infers that Whites are the norm.

In an examination of anti-racist White identity among education counselors working in Northern Canada with the Inuit, Christine Wihak (2007) underscores some of the pitfalls of Whites being engaged in social justice work. One fundamental problem she exposes is the common theme that the White counselors in her study did not consider their own racial identities, which compounded the complexity of the relationships between First Nations peoples and Whites as well as re-asserting an inequitable power dynamic. Wihak emphasizes that the “ability to be colour-blind and not colour-blind simultaneously is the hallmark of the achievement of a mature, antiracist, White identity,” which counters the mainstream ethos and mythology about how race has no salience. Understanding how race is not neutral, therefore, can prepare Whites who work with non-Whites for the diversity of lived experiences that flavor intercultural relations, both positive and negative, including manifestations of discrimination (Howard, 1999; Parker, Moore & Neimeyer, 1998).

In writing about racialization in teacher education, Susan Tilley and Kelly Powick (2007) found that White students in a graduate teacher education program were uncomfortable, and seemingly incapable, of connecting with their own racial origin while the racial minority students in the same program produced sophisticated depictions and nuanced analyses of the reality of Whiteness. For racial minority students, concepts and ideas were taken up in more personal ways. Throughout the interviews, these students introduced stories of their parents growing up in a racialized society, retold personal encounters with racism, and even related course content to the schooling experiences of their own children…. A racial minority participant talked about the idea of White privilege as “not really [new]

because I’ve been confronted with it throughout my whole life that they [White people] are the dominant race,” while White students often struggled with the idea that their group membership grants unearned privileges not available to “others.” (p. 8)

Discussing race in a critical way can, therefore, be an important piece of the learning process for teachers who are in schools with increasingly diverse student populations (Sleeter, 2001; Levine-Rasky, 2000).

In his work with undergraduate education students, Carl James (2007) details the complexity of the process of understanding and rendering the concept of Whiteness more relevant. He underscores the normative conceptualization of Whiteness that underpins White hegemony, effectively allowing many educators to believe that racism is not something in which they are personally implicated (Solomon, Portelli, Daniel & Campbell, 2005). James also makes the case for addressing race, racism and racialization directly, and also confronting the notion of color-blindness, which, as mentioned previously, serves to undermine the

experiences of racial minorities.

One area that significantly complicates the study of Whiteness relates to the introduction of ethnic and other identities that intersect with Whiteness, which allows some sectors to discredit the salience of Whiteness. Cynthia Levine-Rasky (2007) raises the issue of the intersectionality between Whiteness and Jewish identity, which directly crosses into social class and race matters. She profiles school choice and how one area with a significant Jewish population responded to the influx of students of low socio-economic and immigrant status. In cautioning to not over-generalize about identity-formation, Levine-Rasky emphasizes the impact of the neo-liberal commodification of the school, stressing how education forms an important part of the economic equation in the marketplace (Hill, 2003). It is important to point out that there are numerous manifestations to Whiteness, which can take various forms according to the context, as interaction and conflict between White groups can also be illustrative of Whiteness in relation to power and privilege.

Lisa Comeau (2007) argues that “the discursive production of cultural difference through racializing and racist discourse is complicit in re-inscribing both

Whiteness and Otherness, thereby reproducing the social inequality that is claimed to be the object of transformative, anti-oppressive education.” (p. 151) Significantly, Comeau, like a few other contributors to the book, critically reveals how Whiteness is traditionally translated as “goodness” in educational discourse, which necessitates a greater emphasis on power throughout educational studies (Sleeter, 2002).

Patrick Solomon and Beverly-Jean Daniel (2007) recount how pre-service teachers conceptualize Whiteness, echoing the sentiment that a deep understanding of racialism has traditionally been avoided in teacher-educator programs. This has had the effect of reinforcing White privilege owing to the fact that a textured and accurate portrayal of the construction of Canada has not been infused in the educational experiences of a large number of people and communities (Boyko, 1998). The effect has been that many White Canadians naturally believe that Canada is a good, benevolent country, much less hard-edged and unjust than the US. Solomon and Daniel emphasize that the absence of a critical analysis of Whiteness further impedes Whites to interrogate their own implication in maintaining privilege.

The part of the story that seldom gets told is the fact that their ancestors were given land (often stolen from First Nations peoples), or allowed to purchase land for nominal sums of money. The fact that their ancestors Anglicized their names in an attempt to better fit in with the existing Canadian populace, or that within one generation, their White skin and the disappearance of their accent gave them access as the dominant group at the time, is another part of the story that remains untold. (p. 10)

Ultimately,

they

conclude

that

teacher-education

candidates

must

acknowledge how they experience economic, political, social and ideological benefits through centuries of colonialism and imperialism if they are to effectively challenge the mythology of meritocracy and White goodness.

In relation to the institutional context of Whiteness, several contributors to the book interrogate how race and identity are played out in educational settings. Laura Mae Lindo (2007), who is of African-Canadian origin, examines the Philosophy courses in the Ontario curriculum, discovering that there is little place for non-White philosophers. Paradoxically, she finds that rather than opening up avenues to discuss fundamental philosophical concepts such as power, identity and epistemology, the Ontario curriculum, despite there being some limited opportunities to explore issues

given a very skilled and ambitious teacher, serves to re-affirm the dominance and power of Whiteness and male hegemony (McIntosh, 1992).

Debbie Donsky and Matt Champion (2007), two White school administrators in the Toronto region, in their reflection on how their own Whiteness continually shapes their leadership and relationship to the largely non-White student body in their school, ultimately question normative values in how public education is structured. They raise an important consideration about White people being engaged in the study of Whiteness, especially since systems, institutions and cultural values do not easily permit a critical examination of how power and privilege are accrued by Whites. One important finding from their study relates to the role of non-White parents in supporting their children in education, for which they have noted many systemic barriers to their full participation.

Gulzar Charania (2007) uncovered the intricate workings of an educational institutional cultural that victimized Black females while supporting the comfort-level of White females in a middle school context. She explores the normative values of what she characterizes as the “dominant story” in a racial incident as follows:

The multicultural school requires the appearance of difference but only on conditions and terms defined by the students and community that are rightly entitled to the space. Racialized students are not excluded from the school officially or denied access all together. However, their success or failure is thought to be about qualities intrinsic to who they are, qualities worn on their bodies as explanation, rather than in the systemic processes of marginalization they experience and the racially ordered opportunities offered to them. Curiously, the inclusion of these less desirable students also has the effect of representing the White students and community as gracious, tolerant hosts, making space in their school community at considerable inconvenience and disruption. (p. 12)

This analysis complements the general concern enunciated by others (Carr, 2006; Hoover & Shook, 2003) in relation to accountability in education. With such a neo-liberal push for accountability, is there room for a focus on social justice?

In my chapter in the book (Carr 2007a), I focus on the educational policymaking process, highlighting how it is infused with White power and privilege.
A critical realization from this review of how government functions in support of Whiteness resides in the infinite number of subtleties and

nuances framing the discourse. Despite the numerous efforts, resources, and pronouncements in support of social justice at the formal, institutional level, the results appear to be extremely mitigated and the impact rarely sustained…. The power to manipulate and omit language has been used to convince broad sectors of society of the high level of “democracy” and “accountability” in education. (p. 13)

I conclude that the prevailing mythology about individual effort, merit and color-blindness must be countered, contextualized and exposed if tangible social justice gains are to be realized. Given the far-reaching impact of educational policymaking, it is necessary to connect it to the curriculum, pedagogy, teachereducation, parental involvement, student experience, accountability measures and the other components forming the core of the educational experience. White power and privilege must therefore be addressed at multiple levels, and this requires a broad process of interrogating, engaging and taking action on social justice, not just on matters of a racial nature.

Discussion

This paper has provided a broad range of arguments that collectively attempt to describe, define, problematize and critically interrogate Whiteness. To confront Whiteness, it is important to expose it, and to render it visible to those who are sheltered by it as well as those who are most adversely affected by its existence. It is equally necessary to address myriad, systemic issues so as to not get lost in the web of individual actions, however important they may be, in order to address the more insidious, deeply entrenched cultural and institutional practices that seemingly escape inspection. Similarly, one must be vigilant to avoid the cloudy haze of misinformation, which disregards any discussion on the matter because, as is commonly suggested in our increasingly multicultural societies, “race is not a scientific construct” or “we are all individuals.” As many of the contributors to The Great White North? maintain, we all have a responsibility to be engaged, to question identity, difference, marginalization and the existence or lack thereof of social justice. An important focus to the overall analysis in this paper is that Whites must embrace this engagement for there to be a change in the construction and application of racism. Addressing Whiteness does not infer a decline in the status of Whites; more properly, it translates into a more just society, one which will benefit all people.

An important consideration linked to the existence and maintenance of Whiteness is political literacy. If schools and educators teach for and about political literacy, would it be possible to address some of the underlying conditions of Whiteness? Is it possible to teach about and for political literacy in an era of neoliberalism (Schugurensky, 2000)? How does focusing on employment, competition and privatization skew the debate on social justice, citizenship and democracy, which are inextricably linked to White power and privilege (Hill, 2003)? If fear of indoctrination is a concern for educators (Sears & Hughes, 2006), then how will they strive to achieve constructive and critical engagement in the classroom? If teachers are fearful of denouncing patriotism, how can political literacy surpass superficial notions of democracy being a function of the electoral process (Westheimer, 2006)?

To break the cycle of Whiteness, which necessarily involves a global, holistic and systemic process, students, educators, decision-makers, stakeholders and others need to be engaged and focused on the human condition. This may sound trite but with the excessive focus on standards, testing, outcomes and accountability, all important “buzz-words” in the neo-liberal context, there is little room for inclusion, representation, responsive curriculum, enhanced and meaningful student

experiences, and a global approach to understanding social needs (Lipman, 2004). Put another way, students are not simply workers; they are also citizens, people who live in communities, members of society who must reconcile important issues such as the environment, health care, racism, poverty, war and peace, standards of living, and complicity in the lives of others in an inter-dependent way (Schugurensky, 2000).

Critical pedagogy offers an avenue for dissecting and positioning the teaching and learning process to grapple with seemingly intractable issues. Paulo Freire’s (2005) approach to critical engagement and political literacy has stimulated a number of works by critical pedagogues. Giroux (1988) has highlighted

“emancipatory literacy”, complementing McLaren’s (2007) revolutionary praxis aimed at transforming education. In sum, education is a political project, and addressing issues related to difference, identity and power require a commitment to

democratizing teaching, learning and political engagement within schools and in society.

A critical interrogation of the epistemology of Whiteness should underpin any discussion of political literacy and educational transformation. The entrenchment of White power and privilege is infused in the normative values framing neo-liberalism. Dei and Kempf (2006) have detailed how Whiteness is engraved in the colonial project, stripping away the material well-being of indigenous and colonized peoples as well as, importantly, activating a nefarious colonization of the mind. The subtle, sophisticated and pervasive manifestations of superiority by the White race have served to undermine indigenous knowledge and sovereignty.

In sum, any educational project aiming for social justice that excludes an analysis and interrogation of Whiteness will likely be fraught with the same inequitable power relations that have characterized what Bourdieu and Passaron (1990) term as the reproduction of social relations. Whiteness can, and should be, approached from a range of vantage-points. Fighting discrimination, inequities, injustice, marginalization and a restrictive curriculum that reinforces neo-liberal hegemony requires a critical examination of Whiteness. One of the explicit objectives of The Great White North? is to help initiate discussion on Whiteness in society, in general, and in education, in particular. To this end, judging by the initial reaction— with an article in Canada’s national newspaper, followed by a highly animated electronic discussion on the paper’s website, and several radio interviews,

immediately following a presentation on the book at a national conference in May, 2007—it is hoped that there will be a constructive dialogue, at many levels, which fully involves Whites in a critical and engaged manner.

References

Britannica Online. (2007). (Definition of) Epistemology. Accessed on June 11, 2007 at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106052/epistemology .

Carr, Paul R. (2007). The Whiteness of Educational Policymaking In Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren, E. (eds.). The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, privilege and identity in education (pp. 223-233). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren E. (2007a). Conceptualizing Whiteness. In Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren, E. (eds.), The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, privilege and identity in education (pp. 1-18). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Charania, Gulzar R. (2007). A Group That Plays Together Stays Together: Tracing a Story of Racial Violence In Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren, E. (eds.), The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, privilege and identity in education (pp. 209-222). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Comeau, Lisa. (2007). Re-inscribing Whiteness Through Progressive Constructions of “the Problem” in Anti-Racist Education. In Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren, E. (eds.), The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, privilege and identity in education (pp. 151-160). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Dei, G. J. S. (2007) Foreword. In Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren, E. (eds.), The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, privilege and identity in education (pp. viixii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Fleras, A. & Elliot. J. L. (2003). Unequal relations: An introduction to race and ethnic dynamics in Canada. (4th ed). Toronto, ON, Prentice Hall.

Northcott, Herbert C. (2007). Going Native: A White Guy’s Experience Teaching in an Aboriginal Context. In Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren, E. (eds.), The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, privilege and identity in education (pp. 57-66). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Solomon, R. Patrick & Daniel, Bevery-Jean M. (2007). Discourses on Race and “White Privilege” in the Next Generation of Teachers. In Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren, E. (eds.), The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, privilege and identity in education (pp. 161-172). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Tilley, Susan A. & Powick, Kelly D. (2007). “Radical Stuff”: Starting a Conversation about Racial Identity and White Privilege. In Carr, Paul R. & Lund, Darren, E.

(eds.), The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, privilege and identity in education (pp. 107-118). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

It should be noted that parts of this paper are inspired from the introduction to The Great White North? (Carr &Lund, 2007a). 2 The encyclopedia Britannica Online defines epistemology as “the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek episteme (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. Epistemology has a long history, beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing to the present. Along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics, it is one of the four main branches of philosophy, and nearly every great philosopher has contributed to it.” (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106052/epistemology). The reference to the ancient Greeks, in and of itself, may infer a level of Whiteness in relation to how we define definitions of knowledge. 3 Although this terminology is widely used, it is inadequate because it infers that Whites do not have a color or a racial origin, and, moreover, that they constitute the norm.

Readers