CHAPTER TWO
The three aspects of my life which make this study essential for my personal development are my whiteness, my maleness, and my work as a multicultural and diversity awareness facilitator. My whiteness and maleness affect my experiences as a facilitator as well as my understandings of multicultural issues such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, and classism, while my experiences as a facilitator affect my understanding of my maleness and whiteness. As a result, a review of three areas of literature are in order: white identity or "whiteness", male identity, and the white male experience in multiculturalism or multicultural work.
A review of the literature on white identity or "whiteness" and a review of the literature on male identity provides comparison points with which to understand my experiences and those of the participants. It is not my intention to find a theory or framework on white identity or male identity to work from in this study, but instead to use existing theories or frameworks as points of reference for the stories and experience which come out of the study.
A review of the current literature on white males in the field of multicultural education provides an understanding of the current climate for white males in the field. It will also enhance the understanding of how whiteness and maleness play into the development of multicultural and diversity facilitators, both personally and professionally.
Two themes emerged from the review of the literature on white identity or "whiteness." The first of these is a group of characteristics consistently associated with whiteness throughout the literature including white privilege, the tendency to deny the significance of race and racism, and the tendency to deny or misunderstand systemic racism. The second theme is white racial identity development, and models constructed to help analyze this development. I will discuss these themes separately, then summarize the literature on white identity or "whiteness" below.
Characteristics Associated with Whiteness
Rebecca Powell (1996) asserts that we, as white people, fail to see our whiteness. Whiteness is "perceived as both neutral and normative" (Powell, 1996, p. 12). The denial of whiteness leads us to "experience ourselves as nonracialized individuals" (Scheurich, 1993, p. 6). We refuse to allow our skin color to define us. Katz and Ivey (1977) observe: "Ask a white person what he or she is racially and you might get the answer 'Italian,' 'English,' 'Catholic,' or 'Jewish.' White people do not see themselves as white."
As our whiteness loses its meaning, we begin to assume that skin color is irrelevant for everyone. We claim "color-blindness," insisting that focusing on color serves to divide people when we should work to unite (Powell, 1996; Terry, 1970). Those of us who claim they are color-blind insist that any consciousness of color is, in fact, racism (Terry, 1970, p. 17). In effect, we deny the importance of race for ourselves and for others, producing a "color-evasive orientation" to race (Frankenberg, 1993).
The combination of denying our own whiteness and the significance of race for people of color serves to obscure our understanding of racism. We fail to see ourselves as the collective "white," thus allowing ourselves to ignore the institution of "whiteness." As Powell argues,
ignoring racial difference generally means that we also ignore issues associated with race, such as the marginalization of persons of color in our classrooms through promoting a predominately white, mainstream perspective (1996, p. 14).
She continues:
Believing that 'we are really all the same' negates the institutionalization of racism; it denies that race has, and continues to be, pervasive in the structuring of relationships in our society (1996, p. 14).
We understand racism only as a manifestation of personal prejudice - overt acts of specific individuals, removed from historical, political, or systemic contexts (Lawrence, 1997; Scheurich, 1993; Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Giroux, 1997). By focusing on individuals, we deny that structural barriers for the mobility of people of color exist (Bowser and Hunt, 1996; Scheurich, 1993), adhering to the idea that America is the land of opportunities for all people (Feagin and Vera, 1995). This relationship between our denial of the significance of race and our failure to acknowledge the existence of institutional racism is fueled and maintained by the privilege we experience as white people. McIntosh defines white privilege as "an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was 'meant' to remain oblivious" (1988, p. 1). She uses the metaphor of a "weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, emergency gear, and blank checks" to describe the advantage white people have in America, "solely as a result of the skin color of which we adamantly deny the significance" (1988, p. 1). She reflects on her employment of white privilege:
There was one piece of cultural turf; it was my own turf, and I was among those who could control the turf. I could measure up to the cultural standards and take advantage of the many options I saw around me to make what the culture would call a success of my life. My skin color was an asset for any move I was educated to want to make. I could think of myself as 'belonging' in major ways, and of making social systems work for me. I could freely disparage, fear, neglect, or be oblivious to anything outside of the dominant culture forms. Being of the main culture, I could also criticize it fairly freely. My life was reflected back to me frequently enough so that I felt, with regard to my race, if not to my sex, like one of the real people. (1988, p. 9).
McIntosh and others have compiled lists of privileges we, as white people, have been given as a result of our whiteness. McIntosh's list consists of forty-six things she "can" do, including: "go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed," "talk with my mouth full of food and not have people put this down to my race," "easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race," and "criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider" (1988, pp. 4-7). Paul Kivel, drawing on McIntosh's list, constructed a more general list, noting:
We can generally count on police protection rather than harassment. Depending on our financial situation, we can choose where we want to live and choose neighborhoods that are safe and have decent schools. We are given more attention, respect and status in conversations than people of color. We see people who look like us in the media, history books, news and music in a positive light. We have more recourse to and credibility within the legal system. Nothing we do is qualified, limited, discredited or acclaimed simply because of our racial background. We don't have to represent our race, and nothing we do is judged as a credit to our race, or as confirmation of its shortcomings and inferiority (1996, pp. 28-29).
Kivel summarizes, "All else being equal, it pays to be white" (1996, p. 29).
Helms (1993) links white privilege specifically to racism, asserting that white people are born as the beneficiaries of racism. We are educated to be "color-blind" in terms of our own identity, encouraged to deny the significance of race for others, and presented with an individualistic ideology which ignores systemic racism, all the while carrying with us the privilege to ignore the whole cycle (Lawrence, 1996). We have the privilege to ignore that our privileges come at the expense of people of color (McIntyre, 1997); the privilege to ignore that we benefit from racism and the privilege of refusing to take the responsibility to address this (Feagin and Vera, 1995), and the privilege to remain comfortable in the dominant culture, inviting others to assimilate into our culture with disregard for their own culture and race. It is only in the elimination of our denial and the acknowledgment of our privilege that we can begin to truly understand ourselves and our roles in America's racist society.
In an attempt start this process of understanding, researchers in the fields of education, psychology, and sociology began to develop models and typologies on white racial identity.
White Identity Models Which Focus on Eliminating Racism
A number of models and typologies have been developed to summarize the stages of white identity development (Carney and Kahn, 1984; Ganter, 1977; Helms, 1990; Terry, 1970). Helms (1990) describes two categories for these models and typologies. The first are those that focus on eliminating white racism, but were, according to Helms, "fueled by the implicit assumption that racism was only damaging to the victims of the resulting oppression but did not consider their effects on the beneficiaries...of racism" (Helms, 1990, p. 50). A typology originally produced by Kovel (1970) as descriptions of different types of racists then elaborated by Gaertner (1976) and Jones (1972) to include other modes of "whiteness," fits such a description:
Type 1 - Dominative racist: Openly seeks to keep Black people in inferior positions and will use force to do so.Type 2 - Aversive Dominative racist: Believes in white superiority, but tries to ignore the existence of Black people to avoid intrapsychic conflict.
Type 3 - Aversive Liberal racist: Despite aversion to Blacks, uses impersonal social reforms to improve Blacks' conditions.
Type 4 - Ambivalent: Expresses exaggeratedly positive or negative responses toward Blacks, depending on the consequences to the white person.
Type 5 - Non-racist: Does not reveal any racist tendencies. (Summarized by Helms, 1990)
According to McIntyre, the limitation of this and other models in this category is that they failed to consider the affects of white racism on white people (1997, p. 17). Instead, these white racial identity theories were formulated purely from an analysis of prejudice and individual racism (Jones and Carter, 1996, p. 4). This can be illustrated by further examination of the above model by Kovel (1970), Gaertner (1976), and Jones (1972).
The dominative racist, according to Kovel, acts out bigoted beliefs:
Whether a Night Rider in the South or a member of a mob protesting open housing in Chicago, he represents the open flame of race hatred. The true white bigot expresses a definitive ambition through all his activity: he openly seeks to keep the black man down, and he is willing to use force to further his ends... (1970, p. 54)
Kovel never mentions the affects of this attitude type on the white individual, instead focusing on its affects on "the black man."
An analysis of Kovel's description of the aversive dominative racist results in the same discovery:
The type who believes in white race superiority and is more or less aware of it, but does nothing overt about it... He tries to ignore the existence of black people, tries to avoid contact with them, and at most to be polite, correct and cold in whatever dealings are necessary between the races (Kovel, 1970, p. 54).
Again, the typology, while attempting to explain how white people at different stages of awareness affect Black people, fails to consider how these attitudes toward Black people affects the experiences of white people. Helms (1984), reacting to this and other similar models and typologies, explains, "personal identity development [in these models] is ignored in favor of inferring social adaptability from racial attitudes toward other groups" (p. 155).
Katz and Ivey (1977) argue that such an approach works to maintain the racist system. They suggest that white people tend to deny their whiteness, relying on white social norms to force others to define themselves in relation to white people.
Ask a white person what he or she is racially and you may get the answer "Italian," "English," "Catholic," or "Jewish." white people do not see themselves as white... By seeing oneself solely as an individual one disowns their whiteness and therefore their racism (p. 486).
Katz and Ivey (1977) acknowledge the harmful affects that our denial of whiteness, and the resulting denial of responsibility for the racist system, have on people of color, but also directly consider these affects on the development of positive racial identity development for white people:
What is needed is a constant focus on the reality of racism and on the behaviors that support it. Once we develop an awareness of our self-defeating behaviors it will be possible to move to a more liberated self and society. We must begin to remove the intellectual shackles and psychological chains that keep us in a mental and spiritual bondage. white people have been hurt for too long (p. 487).
Another problem with white identity models which focus on prejudice against other groups, according to Helms (1984), is that they typically "implied a bipolar bias against other groups rather than multiple forms of bias lying along a continuum" (p. 155). She uses the example of comparing "a person who regularly dons a sheet and hood to express her or his racial attitudes" to "one who says, 'Some of my best friends are black'" (p. 155). Each of these individuals are perpetrating a form of bias, though not to the same degree of seriousness. According to Helms (1984), models must allow for a continuum of racial attitudes, ranging from extreme bias to no bias.
Helms' White Racial Identity Process
According to Helms (1990), the second category of white identity models and typologies includes those which focus on white racism as damaging to the development of positive white racial identities for white people. While these models still offer considerable attention to eliminating white racism (Bidell and Lee, 1994), they do so in the context of examining how white people can develop a positive white racial identity by better understanding their own whiteness as a social and cultural variable. As Lawrence and Bunche (1996) posit,
Only when white persons fully examine their whiteness and recognize their position in the racial order can they go beyond positions of assumed superiority and work towards effective change by opposing institutional and cultural racism (p. 532).
A number of educators, psychologists, sociologists, and others have developed models or typologies which fall under this category, including Terry (1977), Hardiman (1979), Ganter (1977), Helms (1984; 1990) and Carney and Kahn (1984). Though the stages or phases in these models are named differently, they describe virtually the same processes through a "continuum of statuses" in which white people confront increasingly difficult issues regarding their whiteness (McIntyre, 1997). The literature suggests that the most widely accepted and reviewed of these models is Helms' six-stage process for developing a positive white racial identity (McIntyre, 1997; Jones and Carter, 1996; Carter and Goodwin, 1994; Lawrence and Bunche, 1996).
Helms developed her original model by informally interviewing "a few white friends and colleagues to determine how they viewed the development of their racial consciousness" (1984, p. 155). Upon analyzing the interviews, she found the coping strategies of the interviewees "rather reminiscent of the manner in which members of a visiting culture might adjust to a host culture" (1984, p. 155). As a result, she adapted culture shock theories to "explain the attitudinal evolutionary process" (1984, p. 155).
Helms' original model included five stages of white people's "racial consciousness": Contact, Disintegration, Reintegration, Pseudo-Independence, and Autonomy (1984). Helms (1984) notes that each of these stages can end in either a positive or a negative resolution, propelling the individual to the next stage, locking the individual in the current stage, or pushing them back to a previous stage. A positive resolution results in "greater personal adjustment and better interpersonal relationships with people of other races" (Helms, 1984, p. 155). Because of their dominant position in society, white people may decide to stay in settings which will allow them to remain in a particular stage.
The Contact stage is characterized by denial of whiteness and ignorance regarding the importance of differences. It begins when a white person becomes aware that Black people (or other ethnic minority groups) exist (Helms, 1984). At this stage, the white person, depending on the attitudes passed down to him or her through parents, education and the media, will react to African American people with interest and curiosity (Helms, 1984, p. 155). This is the stage at which white people deny their own whiteness and the importance of race altogether, so as they become aware of the difficulties associated with cross-cultural interactions, they either decide to withdrawal, avoiding any contact with people of color, or attempt to satisfy their curiosity by befriending people of color. Those who choose to withdrawal will not develop cross-cultural communication skills, resulting in a small crisis each time they come into contact with people of color. Those who choose to befriend people of color slowly develop an awareness of "the social and political ramifications" of cross-cultural relationships, thrusting them into the Disintegration stage (Helms, 1984, p. 156).
The Disintegration stage is characterized by an acknowledgment of whiteness. Initially, this acknowledgment gives rise to guilt and depression as white people develop an understanding of racism and their role in it. A dilemma presents itself when an individual must consider whether to play into white norms, continuing the history of discrimination against people of color, or to advocate against discrimination and risk alienation from the white community (Helms, 1984). Generally, individuals in this stage choose from three possible solutions: (1) over-identifying with people of color, perhaps trying to fit into the black community, (2) becoming "paternalistic" toward people of color, attempting to shield them from discrimination, or (3) remaining comfortably in white culture (Helms, 1984). Those who choose the first solution soon realize that integration into the black community is not possible, and that they risk being ostracized by both people of color and white people. Those choosing the second solution eventually come to understand that their approach is patronizing and unappreciated, and that they, too, risk being ostracized by people of color as well as white people. As they work through these feelings, they enter the Reintegration stage. According to Helms, those who choose the third solution and remain in white culture may avoid moving into the Reintegration stage "by adopting those white values and beliefs that emphasize racial differences and encourage separation" (1984, p. 156).
The Reintegration stage is marked by hostility toward people of color and closer identification with the white community. People in this stage may be either overtly or covertly prejudiced, tending to "minimize cross-racial similarities, while evaluating negatively those characteristics on which Blacks are perceived to differ" (Helms, 1984, p. 156). This leads the individual to yet another decision. As the individual's prejudices develop into a strong sense of fear and anger, they might choose to withdrawal or participate in cross-cultural relationships from a safe distance until societal situations force them into contact with people of color. Another option would be for the individual to acknowledge her or his whiteness and what that whiteness means socially, politically, and personally. According to Helms, if the latter is chosen, the individual will be able to work through the fear and anger, moving on to the Pseudo-independence stage (1984, p. 156).
The Pseudo-independence stage is characterized by "an intellectual acceptance and curiosity" about people of color and white people (Helms, 1984, p. 156). white people in this stage are interested in issues between racial groups, but only at an intellectual level. Cross-racial interactions usually exist with only a few people of color who seem similar to white people or "special" in some way (Helms, 1984). If the individual becomes more comfortable interacting with people of color, she or he may enhance her or his awareness of racial issues. This should be seen as a positive resolution, preparing the individual for the Autonomy stage (Helms, 1984).
During Autonomy, the final stage, the individual accepts and acknowledges racial differences and issues (Helms, 1984). Differences lose their negative connotations and similarities lose their positive connotations. People at the Autonomy stage seek to engage in interracial interactions, valuing diversity, and remaining secure in their racial identities (Helms, 1984, p. 156).
In later works, Helms included a sixth stage between Pseudo-Independence and Autonomy called Immersion/Emersion to reflect, in her words,
the contention that it is possible for whites to seek out accurate information about their historical, political, and cultural contributions to the world, and that the process of self-examination within this context is an important component of the process of developing a positive white identity (1990, p. 55).
The person in this stage works to replace stereotypes with accurate information about both white people and people of color. To this end, individuals might "immerse" themselves in literature written by white people and people of color who have worked through these issues. They might also revisit emotions regarding their identities which they had previously "denied or distorted" (Helms, 1990, p. 62). Acknowledging these negative feelings and allowing them to be expressed leads the individual to a feeling of "euphoria perhaps akin to a rebirth" (Helms, 1990, p. 62).
Overall, Helms' model suggests that white racial identity development occurs at different rates and degrees within these stages for each individual. Each stage can be resolved in a positive or negative fashion, sending some on to the next stage, freezing some at the current stage, and pulling some back into a previous stage. According to Carter and Goodwin (1996), it allows for the consideration of "emotional, intellectual, perceptual, behavioral, social, and cultural" dimensions of individual and interactive being.
While the 1970's produced numerous white racial identity models, most of the literature produced on the topic since the development of Helm's model (1984) has worked from her model. The literature suggests that Helms' model has been adopted by both education and psychology as the basis for understanding white racial identity development. According to Jones and Carter (1996), the model "has received empirical scrutiny" and that the empirical evidence suggests "a strong relationship between the various racial identity ego statuses and prejudice" (p. 10).
Summary of the Literature on White Identity or "Whiteness"
The literature identifies three characteristics of whiteness: white privilege, the tendency to deny the significance of race and racism, and the tendency to deny or misunderstand systemic racism. These characteristics seem to affect each other in a cyclical manner. We, as white people, are born with an "invisible knapsack" of privileges assigned to us only because of our skin color (McIntosh, 1988). This white privilege allows us the luxury to deny the importance of race by denying our whiteness and claiming taking a color-blind approach to racial issues. We might claim that offering any attention to one's race is, in fact, racism (Terry, 1970). Through the fogged lenses of our denial of the significance of race, we fail to acknowledge the existence of systemic or institutional racism. Instead, we recognize racism only as individual acts by individual people (Lawrence, 1997; Scheurich, 1993; Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Giroux, 1997). As a result, we maintain the privilege of not having to accept responsibility for our racist society (Feagin and Vera, 1995).
In order to make more sense of how white people develop racial identity, researchers in the fields of education, psychology, and sociology began constructing models and typologies of white racial identity development in the early 1970's. Early models focused on eliminating prejudice and racism, failing to consider how the experience of whiteness affected the development of white individuals (Helms, 1990). In 1984, Helms developed a model focusing on the acknowledgment and exploration of what it means to be white and toward the development of a positive, nonracist definition of whiteness (1993). Her model consisted of five stages of white racial identity development: Contact, Disintegration, Reintegration, Pseudo-Independence, and Autonomy. She later added a sixth stage, Immersion-Emersion, which occurs between Pseudo-Independence and Autonomy (Helms, 1990).
Each of the characteristics of whiteness discussed above fall into the early stages of Helms' model. At the Contact Stage, "a person benefits from institutionalized and cultural racism without conscious awareness" (Carter and Goodwin, 1994, p. 311). Even in later stages, as our denial ceases and our awareness increases, we continue to participate in the racist system we once denied existed. For example, in the Reintegration stage, as we acknowledge our whiteness, we continue to endorse the systemic discrimination of people of color (Carter and Goodwin, 1994). All along, we maintain the privilege to remain comfortable in our current stage, to explore the next stage, or to retreat to a previous stage when necessary.
designed and maintained by Paul C. Gorski
url: home.earthlink.net/~gorski/dissertation/literature.html