Racial and Gender Identity Development in White Male Multicultural Educators and Facilitators: Toward Individual Processes of Self-development by Paul Gorski University of Virginia April 1998 © Copyright by Paul C. Gorski All Rights Reserved May 1998 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 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. White Identity or "Whiteness" 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 That 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). She 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 (1984). 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. During Autonomy, the final stage, the individual accepts and acknowledges racial differences and issues. 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. Male Identity or "Maleness" Like the literature on white identity, the male identity literature revealed a variety of different approaches for understanding maleness. The psychoanalytic approach, constructed by Sigmund Freud during the late nineteenth century, addressed the thoughts, feelings, and fantasies of people in order to explore how these might have been affected by early childhood experiences (Edley and Wetherell, 1996). Combining psychotherapy and sociology is the role theory approach which uses a theatrical metaphor to describe men's roles as the performance of socially prescribed behaviors (Edley and Wetherell, 1996). Sociologists produced the third approach, the social relations perspective, identifying "masculinity" as a "set of distinctive practices that emerge from men's positioning within a variety of social structures" (Edley and Wetherell, 1996). Each approach differs in its assumptions about how identity is formed, maintained, and changed. Still, an examination across the literature of these approaches produces a list of characteristics commonly identified by each approach as an issue in male identity development. The following is a review of the literature regarding three approaches for understanding male identity followed by a review of the issues of male identity development frequently discussed throughout the literature. Three Approaches for Understanding Male Identity Psychoanalysis. Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that children are naturally driven toward certain types of physical satisfaction, and the way in which parents respond to this drive is the key factor in establishing a child's identity (Edley and Wetherell, 1996). According to Freud, little difference exists between the psyches of boys and girls during the first few years of life. Then, between the ages of three and six, children's psychosexual energies focus on the parent of the opposite sex, developing in the male a strong sexual pull toward his "first love-object," his mother, and a simultaneous pull away from his "imagined rival," his father (Freud, 1935, p. 289). Wong explains: The male's incestuous cravings for the mother bring him into conflict with the father, a much larger and more powerful object than himself. The resulting fear and anxiety...causes him to repress his sexual feelings toward his mother. Since he cannot fight his father, he chooses instead to switch allegiances and begins to identify with his former rival (1982, p. 79). Freud (1935, p. 290) termed this stage of desiring one's mother and hating one's father the "Oedipus complex" and argued that it is through resolving this struggle that the male develops an inflated superego and learns to repress his feminine side, in fear of his father. According to Freud, Along with the dissolution of the Oedipus complex the object-cathexis of the mother must be given up. Its place may be filled by one of two things: either an identification with the mother or an intensified identification with the father. We are accustomed to regard the latter outcome as the more normal... In this way the passing of the Oedipus complex would consolidate the masculinity in the boy's character (1927, p. 41). This marks the beginning of a boy's masculine identity. Freud's assertion that the male child learns to repress his feminine side illustrated another critical aspect in Freudian thought on gender. He argued that everyone has both masculine and feminine qualities (Freud, 1927). Moreover, he hypothesized that by nature, humans are bisexual (Freud, 1927, p. 40) so that, for successful gender identity development, one set of qualities must be suppressed. Freud's theory has been challenged and elaborated countless times. Carl Jung, spending part of his career as Freud's colleague and another as his adversary, added some dimensions to describe the male child's drive. His concept of "archetypes," the "collective unconscious" which results from the history of one's lineage, offered a different dimension of explanation for male behavior (Wong, 1982). Jung, like Freud, believed that people are naturally bisexual, with each gender inherently carrying both masculine and feminine qualities. Unlike Freud, he argued that the different genetic structures of males and females, naturally held in the "collective unconscious" of each group, resulted in different psychological development for the two groups (Wong, 1982). In males, the masculine archetype, called "animus," is dominant, but the feminine archetype, called "anima," remains, representing the existence of female genes and the male's female ancestry. Wong (1982) summarized Jung's theory: On the basic foundations laid by the animus and anima, the boy child builds his conception of what is masculine and what is feminine. In his relations with men and women, he builds on the archetypes. They affect his view of what he comes to experience as male and female as he projects his anima and animus onto his object relations in the interactive process of building gender identity and receives an idea of what to expect from the other sex (p. 83). Harry Stack Sullivan also contributed to Freud's conception of masculine identity development. Where Freud stressed biology and Jung stressed psychology, Sullivan introduced the importance of interpersonal relationships to identity development (Wong, 1982). The first important interaction is with a child's mother, as the mother is the first "object of his/her beginning experience of object relationships" (Wong, 1982, p. 83). Sullivan's ideas of the Oedipal complex were based primarily on the experiences between parents and child rather than on genetics (Wong, 1982). He argued that a sense of empathy naturally grows between a child and the parent of the same sex. As a result, the male child develops the characteristics of his father and begins to develop his father's attitudes about people of the other sex (Wong, 1982). Also, it is the father who teaches male children about the difficult aspects of life, forming a closer bond between father and son than between mother and son. Meanwhile, the child "retains more of the idealization of the parent of the other sex" through the empathy process (Wong, 1982, p. 83). Then, according to Wong, to the degree that the parent of the same sex is oversensitive to this relative antipathy directed toward him/her, the Oedipus/Electra conflict and its associated fear, anger, and guilt will appear (1982, p. 83). Later psychoanalysts continue to build on and rethink the ideas originally discussed by Freud, Jung, and Sullivan. Erik Erikson introduced the effects of national and ethnic identity on male identity formation (1950), straying from Freud's tight focus on psychological identity formation. Psychoanalysts of the 1960s and 1970s, including Ralph Greenson (1968), argued that men, as opposed to women, are the insecure and fragile set because young boys, after being cared for primarily by their mothers, are forced to disassociate with them. Others challenged Freud's assumption of the superiority of masculinity over femininity, arguing that men "appear to be in a constant state of uncertainty about their own gender identities; always in a state of having to prove themselves as men" (Edley and Wetherell, 1996, p. 98). Psychoanalytic theories of male identity development have been criticized for failing to sufficiently recognize social and cultural variables in the formation of identity. Critics include a new generation of psychoanalysts who assert that the psychological processes described by Freud and elaborated by others are not causes of the sexist society, but are consequences of that society. They have begun to ask a different set of questions about male identity, summarized by Edley and Wetherell: ...if being a man does not mean being emotional, dependent, and caring (like his mother), then what sort of relationships will men enter into with their parents, children and friends? Moreover, if and when men begin to sense that they do have emotional needs and desires, how do they deal with these feelings (1996, p. 100). The new generation of psychoanalysts challenge Freud's assertion that the fear of castration plays such an important role in a male child's life, suggesting instead that they are motivated by the recognition of the power that comes with identifying with men (Edley and Wetherell, 1996). This, they claim, in central to male identity development. Role Theory. Role theory is based on the assumption that all behavior is determined by socially prescribed roles. Men take on masculine identities, performing, as if in a theatrical work, the roles assigned them by society (Edley and Wetherell, 1996). David and Brannon broadly define the "roles" of role theory as "any pattern of behaviors which a given individual in a specified (set of) situation(s) is both: (1) expected and (2) encouraged and/or trained to perform" (1976, p. 5). As men learn to perform these roles, their male identity develops. According to Edley and Wetherell (1996), role theory was first developed in the 1930s by Luis Termini and Catherine Miles. Termini and Miles placed masculinity and femininity on opposite ends of a bipolar model, called the "M/F scale," assigning each a list of opposing attributes consistent with masculine and feminine roles. While the masculine role was accorded attributes such as courage, roughness, and self-reliance, the feminine role was accorded their opposites: timidity, tenderness, and dependence (Edley and Wetherell, 1996 [citing Archer and Lloyd, 1985]). Termini and Miles argued that the gender identity of an individual could be determined by tabulating their traits; therefore, if more masculine traits are found, the individual exhibits a masculine identity. Since Termini and Miles' work, other role theorists have attempted to describe male identity by constructing models attributing specific characteristics to men. David and Brannon identified four themes which "seem to comprise the core requirements for the role" (1976, p. 12): 1. No Sissy Stuff: The stigma of all stereotyped feminine characteristics and qualities, including openness and vulnerability. 2. The Big Wheel: Success, status, and the need to be looked up to. 3. The Sturdy Oak: A manly air of toughness, confidence, and self-reliance. 4. Give 'Em Hell!: The aura of aggression, violence, and daring. "No Sissy Stuff" is the requirement to "never, never resemble women, or display strongly stereotyped feminine characteristics" (David and Brannon, 1976, p. 14). At first, this proves to be difficult, because, according to David and Brannon (1976), male children, like female children, identify closely with their mothers. Consequently, at some point male children must fight the urge to continue that identification and begin to perform a masculine role, unlike female children who may continue to identify with their mothers. Even so, David and Brannon suggest (1976), male children are more pressured to fully take on a masculine identity than female children are to take on a feminine identity. The stigma attached to femininity, or "sissy-ness," they argue, can be observed in every aspect of personality and life: language, hobbies, food, profession, physical appearance, voice, emotion, openness, etc. David and Brannon describe the fear of this stigma: This terror of being a sissy, at an age when the child can hardly understand the meaning of that accusation, let alone ignore it, apparently leaves a deep wound in the psyche of many males (1976, p. 14). This wound is a constant reminder in the life of each male to avoid any activity or trait which may, in any way, associate him with femininity. "The Big Wheel," according to David and Brannon, is the requirement of the male role "to command respect and be looked up to for what one can do or has achieved" (1976, p. 19). This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. David and Brannon (1976) list "Wealth and Fame" as the most desired identifier of masculine success. They suggest that status may be attained in other ways, as well. They offer the examples of the neighborhood champion dart thrower or the fastest sorter in the mail room, both of which have attained status, albeit for a smaller audience. David and Brannon (1976) also identify the need to be competent and knowledgeable, citing as an example the stereotypical male driver who refuses to stop for directions. "The Sturdy Oak" is the male role requirement to display toughness, confidence, and self-reliance (David and Brannon, 1976, p. 23). They point out admired male movie actors and their roles, including William Holden in Stalag 17, Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen, Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke, Marlon Brando in Streetcar Named Desire, and John Wayne in True Grit, all of whom lack social status, but have something which is "harder to identify, for it seems more a matter of style than tangible achievement, and its ingredients are variable" (1976, p. 24). These characters, extreme illustrations of "The Sturdy Oak," are confident, portraying "real men," ready to die, refusing to retreat at any cost. They are tough, both physically and mentally, willing to stand their ground, win or lose (David and Brannon, 1976). The "Give 'Em Hell" male role requirement involves portraying an "aura of aggression, violence, and daring" (David and Brannon, 1976, p. 27). According to David and Brannon (1976), "Give 'Em Hell" is the more covertly negative side of "The Sturdy Oak." They describe it as "the need to hurt, to conquer, to embarrass, to humble, to outwit, to punish, to defeat" or "to move against" people (1976, p. 27). Aggression takes many forms, such as the "aggressive ballplayer," the "aggressive businessman," and "the aggressive thinker" (David and Brannon, 1976, p. 28). Aggression sometimes leads to violence. David and Brannon (1976) note that fathers tend to send the message to male children that violence, while not condoned, is also not condemned. Fathers use phrases like "never start fights," or "never throw the first punch." David and Brannon's model depicts, in their words, a "hypothetical" man portraying the male role to its extreme. They assert that "real people do not and cannot fulfill the idealized cultural prescriptions in every respect, and are not expected to" (1976, p. 36). Instead, working toward realizing the male sex role in full becomes the constant struggle for most males. In general, role theorists, such as David and Brannon, have worked from the assumption that roles can be easily identified and differentiated between sexes. Role theorists have considered these tightly defined roles in positive terms, suggesting that they uphold social stability and allow for the performance of needed social functions (Connell, 1995). It was not until the emergence of feminism as a research perspective during the 1970s that the positive concept of "sex roles" was challenged. Connell (1995) calls role theory "logically vague," pointing out that the roles are defined on "shifting bases." He suggests that the "prescribed" or biological assumptions of role theory are flawed, failing to consider social inequality and power as well as homosexuality (1995, p. 26). Connell (1995) and others (Kimmel, 1987; Brittan, 1989) also criticize role theory's dichotomization of gender and its resulting exaggeration of difference between men and women. Social Relations Perspective. The social relations perspective on male identity is based on the idea that identity emerges from "men's positioning within a variety of social structures" (Edley and Wetherell, 1996). Social relations perspectivists, influenced by the feminist movement, directly address how cultural institutions (such as family, school, work, and peer groups) and cultural identifiers (such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation), affect the development of individuals' identities. If men are, in fact, aggressive, oppressive, unemotional, and competitive, they argue, this is only because of their positions within social structures. Andrew Tolson, one of the pioneers of the social relations perspective, describes its starting point: My starting point is perhaps the most basic of all feminist propositions: the distinction between biology and culture. When we talk about 'masculinity', or when we respond to the masculine 'social presence', we draw upon certain specific forms of social knowledge. This is to say, although certain aspects of sexual behavior are obviously functions of biological sex (including genetic aptitude and physical development), by far the major part of sexuality is cultural (encompassing personality, social behavior; and involving symbolic meanings transmitted in linguistic communication) (1977, pp. 11-12). Tolson, like researchers from the other approaches for understanding male identity discussed above, argues that the foundations for male identity development are established during childhood. He identifies the family as the first cultural and emotional influence on male children. He describes how the early male identity is developed: Boyhood experiences are romanticized - as daring exploits, and dramatic confrontations. But right at the heart of these experiences, as the thread of memory and imagination which binds them together, is a growing sense of what it means to be a man. Boyhood is also enveloped by a masculine sensibility - an awareness of the power conferred upon men by the world of work and money. And because of the form in which this masculinity appears, because of the specific ways in which masculine feelings are structured, a boy begins to feel ambivalent about his masculinity, and begins to feel the need to 'prove himself' (1977, p. 23). This need for males to prove themselves, according to Tolson, is further encouraged institutionally, from boyhood to manhood, by family, school and peer groups. In the family, he points out identity-laced messages passed through generations by parents such as "boys don't cry" and "boys will be boys" (1977, p. 23). Such messages, along with the cultural pressure for boys to match the achievements and social status of their fathers, become confusing to male children who maintain closer emotional ties to their mothers who have nurtured and paid closer attention to them since birth. Tolson (1977) argues that a crucial step in the identity development of male children is in dealing with the father's absence from their lives, both emotional and physical, as it is often primarily the mother who cares for the kids while the father works. During this quest for resolution, boys develop a strong need for recognition and reward, constantly struggling and competing for both (Tolson, 1977). According to Tolson, schooling adds a dimension to male children's quest for resolution, encouraging further struggle and competition. He notes that schools facilitate academic and athletic competition, both measures of "masculine competence" (1977, p. 34). School also introduces boys to the idea of hierarchy. As Tolson explains, boys must learn how to negotiate a number of hierarchical dimensions, before he, in his turn, attains the privilege of employing a first form 'fag' to run to the tuck-shop. A boy learns which staircase is reserved for prefects, which outhouse for lower-fifth smokers. And above all, when caught, he learns to accept punishment without flinching (1977, p. 36). Tolson suggests that, in working through these hierarchical structures, boys adopt masculine values, such as competitiveness, personal ambition, social responsibility, and emotional restraint (1977). Peer groups also provide an outlet for male children to act out inner struggles and develop male identity. The male child's peer group becomes his audience and he develops a "repertoire of stories, jokes, and routines" which help him relate to the group (Tolson, 1977). Emotionally, according to Tolson, he is concerned with the physical presence he is able to maintain, as 'a force to be reckoned with'... He does not actually need to 'prove himself', so long as he can return the banter, or hint at some skill or knowledgeability. For masculinity is more impressive played cool, in choice gestures and side-remarks, rather than in open boasting or violence (1977, p. 43). Tolson also addresses how work and the capitalist system affect how men develop their identities. He argues that the system of capitalism creates a social relations structure which people have to learn to work through in order to survive. The set of behaviors men adopt to survive in the system are, according to Tolson, those we consider "masculine" (Tolson, 1977). The behaviors may differ depending on socio-economic status and group pressures associated with that status. For example, working-class men are more likely than middle class men to dominate at home and adopt a more aggressive, violent persona because of their need to compensate for the powerlessness they feel at work. For all males, the necessity to develop an identity to fit the system of social relations constructed by capitalism results in a tendency for them to be less self- expressive and introspective than women (Tolson, 1977). Like the other approaches for understanding male identity, the social relations approach has been challenged and criticized. Victor Seidler points out that this approach undermines "people's trust in their own experience," not allowing them to participate actively in defining "what they want for themselves both individually and collectively" (1990, p. 225). He also suggests that it allows men to dodge any sense of responsibility for their dominant positions in society (1990). Seidler challenges the social relations approach's failure to address "contradictions within men's experience" (1990, p. 226). Edley and Wetherell (1989) argue that Tolson's approach fails to address a more important question: "What makes most, if not all men want to dominate in the first place?" Issues in Male Identity Development An abundance of research has been conducted by sociologists, psychologists, social psychologists, cultural theorists, anthropologists, and educators regarding male identity. Though this research comes from a variety of fields, as well as a variety of approaches (as discussed above), a review of the literature produces a list of themes consistently identified throughout male identity research as issues in male identity development. These include: 1) fear of femininity, 2) emotional and affectionate inexpressiveness, 3) homophobia, 4) need for power and control, and 5) obsession with success. Fear of femininity. According to James O'Neil (1982), the fear of femininity is the core source of identity conflict for. This fear is instilled into boys during early childhood and is reiterated through socialization throughout men's lives (O'Neil, 1982; Hartley, 1976). Males quickly learn to exhibit all things masculine, while being discouraged from revealing any hint of femininity (LaFollette, 1992; Meth, 1990; David and Brannon, 1976; Hartley, 1976). The ultimate insult is to be called names associated with femininity, such as "sissy" or "wimp" (Connell, 1995; David and Brannon, 1976; Buchbinder, 1994). O'Neil (1982) suggests that it is this deep-rooted fear of femininity which psychologically causes men to struggle with other issues such as emotional and affectionate inexpressiveness, homophobia, and a need for power and control. Emotional and affectionate inexpressiveness. Woven into the fear of femininity, according to the literature, is emotional and intimate inexpressiveness. Men replace emotion with reason, intellectualizing and rationalizing feelings instead of displaying them outwardly (Meth, 1990; Pasick, Gordon and Meth, 1990; Balswick, 1982). The expressions of any emotion or intimacy suggesting vulnerability is socially unacceptable (David and Brannon, 1976; Balswick, 1982; Meth, 1990; Pasick, Gordon and Meth, 1990). This is even true within their peer group, where males, unlike females, are discouraged from expressing affection for same sex friends (Meth, 1990). At the root of men's emotional and intimate inexpressiveness is the knowledge that emotional and intimate expressiveness is considered to be a feminine trait and can result in insults such as "sissy" (David and Brannon, 1976; Balswick, 1982) or worse - it can result in a label such as "fag" or "homosexual" (Lehne, 1976). Homophobia. A related fear among men to that of being considered feminine is being labeled "homosexual" (David and Brannon, 1976; Lehne, 1976; Balswick, 1982). O'Neil (1982), Lehne (1976) and others suggest that this fear is employed by men to enforce social conformity to masculine roles and to maintain social power and control. They put homosexuality at the bottom of the male identity hierarchy, giving heterosexual men more power and privilege than homosexual men (Pleck, 1980; Connell, 1995). Males, not wanting to lose their power and privilege, learn not to exhibit behaviors which may cause them to be labeled "homosexual," including physical contact with other men (Meth, 1990). Need for power and control. The literature suggests that power and control are central to men's self-identity (Meth, 1990; O'Neil, 1982; Steinberg, 1993; Komisar, 1976). According to Kahn, "male power, especially over females, appears to be central to many men's definitions of themselves. With power they are men; without it they are not better than women" (1984, p. 238). According to Marielouise Janssen-Jurreit, physical power is, for men, the "most important criterion for the inferiority of women" (1982, p. 193). Power is seen as something external, something which must be taken from other people (O'Neil, 1982). One result of this is a tendency to assert power and control through acts of physical or sexual violence (Steinberg, 1993; Janssen-Jurreit, 1982). Another result is an escalated competitive spirit, as failure to assume power over others is seen as defeat or "emasculation" (O'Neil, 1982; LaFollette, 1992). This feeds directly into men's obsession with success and achievement. Obsession with success. According to Steinberg, men "aspire to attain higher status, and they are perceived by themselves as more masculine when they succeed" (1993, p. 98). Success is often measured by income, but can also be measured in terms of occupational prestige, fame, and power (David and Brannon, 1976; O'Neil, 1982). David and Brannon explain: ...massive doses of success at almost anything, in fact, seem so inherently masculine that the 'World's Greatest' artist, pianist, chef, hair-dresser, or tiddlywinks player is to some extent protected from the taint of unmasculine activity which surrounds less successful members of his profession (1976, p. 19). Because measures of success are almost always work-related, men tend to become obsessed with work, spending much of their lives working, planning for work, or worrying about work (Pasick, 1990). Summary of the Literature on Male Identity Research on male identity has been conducted within a variety of different fields. Freud and later psychologists developed the psychoanalytic approach, concentrating on how early childhood experiences have affect people's identities (Edley and Wetherell, 1996). Role theorists, such as David and Brannon (1976), attempt to understand male identity as a collection of socially defined roles and behaviors. Andrew Tolson (1977) and other social relationists focus on how men are affected by their position within social structures including family, school, and peer groups. While each school of thought continues to level criticisms at the other approaches, an overall review of the literature on male identity shows that similar themes emerge from the differing approaches, as well as the non-approach- specific literature. These themes, describing characteristics of male identity, include: 1) fear of femininity, 2) emotional and affectionate inexpressiveness, 3) homophobia, 4) need for power and control, and 5) obsession with success. The literature suggests that, while each of the themes can be considered and discussed separately, they are also interrelated. For example, homophobia, and the threat of being labeled "homosexual" is used by men to enforce social conformity to male roles and to maintain social power and control (O'Neil, 1982; Lehne, 1976); the need for power and control translates into competition and an obsession with success (David and Brannon, 1976); and the fear of femininity underlies each of these themes (O'Neil, 1982). White Males and Multiculturalism A review of the literature on multicultural education reveals a lack of consideration of the white male experience within the field. While some work has been done to address white people (men and women) and their roles in multiculturalism, the multicultural education literature tends to focus on the experiences of racial and ethnic minorities (Howard, 1993). That work which does focus on white people falls into three categories: 1) discussions concerning white researchers conducting multicultural counseling research, 2) multicultural competence for white counselors, and 3) white teachers and multicultural education. White Researchers and Multicultural Counseling Research According to Thomas Parham (1993), many white people lack the necessary life experiences, graduate training, certification from ethnic-specific associations, and commitment to address multicultural counseling issues. Without citing specific examples, he points out that the work of white multicultural counseling researchers generally results in literature which frames "culturally different research subjects in stereotypic and derogatory terms" (1993, p. 253). Derald Wing Sue agrees, stating that the work of white researchers on ethnic minorities "frequently portrays them as maladjusted, delinquent, or pathological" (1993, p. 245). Sue also suggests that, too often, white researchers use their research for personal reasons (grants, tenure, and promotion) instead of conducting research for the purpose of "contributing to the betterment the group being researched" (1993, p. 245). Sue (1993) and Parham (1993) suggest that a history of work by white researchers concerning multicultural counseling, with the limitations described above, has resulted in distrust and resentment among minority researchers for white researchers. Researchers of color perceive white researchers as "lacking soul and heart in their research and publications" (Sue, 1993, p. 247). Parham describes his own resentment, as a researcher of color, for the inconsistency in how his work is received compared to that of his white counterparts: Whether the level of scrutiny is a tenure-and-promotion committee or a government agency, there is too often a double standard. Culturally different researchers watch their manuscripts being rejected by journal after journal, whereas white researchers are published with less difficulty. Culturally different researchers watch their grant applications to public agencies turned down, whereas white researchers receive hundreds of thousands of dollars to study us. Culturally different researchers watch white researchers make tenure using ethnic research as a vehicle, whereas ethnic researchers are denied tenure, ironically, because their research is said to be too narrowly focused on this or that cultural group, or published in an ethnic-specific journal to which white researchers give no credibility (1993, p. 252). Paul Pedersen identifies "the basic underlying problem" regarding white researchers and multicultural counseling research as "achieving accuracy in our assessment of ourselves and others" (1993, p. 231). To remedy this problem begins with white researchers developing a better awareness of their whiteness, as well as their values, stereotypes, and biases (Parham, 1993; Sue, 1993). As Helms points out, researchers who fail to acknowledge the effects of their own racial identity development on their research risk adding to "the existing body of racially oppressive literature rather than offering illuminating scholarship" (1993, p. 242). Pedersen (1993) agrees, adding that when researchers ignore their own learned cultural assumptions, they may impose those assumptions on others, leading to inaccuracy in their research. Ivey (1990) suggests that some white multicultural counseling researchers have begun the process of questioning their own assumptions and the meaning of their whiteness, but the research agrees that this process must continue and become a practice of all white multicultural counseling researchers (Parham, 1993; Sue, 1993; Helms, 1993). Parham (1993) identifies a number of other "prerequisites" for white researchers intending to conduct culturally-sensitive research. He argues that white researchers must address a history of biases in sampling techniques, suggesting that too often, samples come from one of two extremes: ghetto-dwellers or college students (1993). He suggests employing research designs which include not only quantitative analysis, but also qualitative measures (1993). Parham (1993) challenges white researchers to become more familiar with different conceptual systems for cultural understanding, pointing out the difficulty in white people conducting meaningful research on African- Americans' mental health without an understanding of what it means to be "mentally healthy" for African people. Sue (1993) also offers suggestions to white researchers interested in conducting multicultural counseling research. She recommends that white researchers be sensitive to the fears and suspicions researchers of color have toward them (1993). She states that white researchers must appreciate the sociopolitical nature of multicultural studies, pointing out that they involve "oppression, discrimination, prejudice, racism, and the dominant-subordinate relations manifested in our society between majority and minority groups" (1993, pp. 246-247). Sue (1993) also suggests that white researchers must begin to see multicultural studies as more than a set of abstract, theoretical ideas. Multicultural Competence of White Counselors Like the literature on white multicultural counseling researchers, the literature regarding white counselors and their multicultural competence focuses on the need for, and importance of, self-awareness (Carter, 1990; Katz, 1985; Ponterotto, 1988; Sabnani, Ponterotto, and Borodovsky, 1991) Richardson and Molinaro (1996) point out that white counselors generally fail to address the needs of culturally diverse clients. This is evident in that people of color are employing counseling services less than white people, and those who do employ counseling services discontinue visits sooner than white people (Richardson and Molinaro, 1996). Much of the literature hypothesizes that the multicultural competence, as well as the overall counseling competence, of white counselors can be improved through an increase in their self-awareness (Richardson and Molinaro, 1996; McRae and Johnson, 1991). It is through this process of increasing self-awareness that white counselors will be better prepared for working effectively with diverse clients (Richardson and Molinaro, 1996; McRae and Johnson, 1991). Richardson and Molinaro (1996) and others offer "prerequisites" for white counselors or counselor trainees, just as Parham (1993) did for white counseling researchers. Richardson and Molinaro (1996) suggest that each white counselor's awareness flows from his or her examination of the racial implications of three self-defining dynamics: worldview, cultural values, and white racial identity. They employ Sue's (1981) definition of "worldview," referring to it as "how a person perceives his or her relationship to the world (such as nature, institutions, other people, things)" (Richardson and Molinaro, 1996, p. 239). If a counselor is unaware of her or his worldview, she or he carries the potential to push that worldview on a client, perhaps resulting in alienation or distrust (Richardson and Molinaro, 1996). According to Torrey (1983), such alienation and distrust can be avoided if the counselor engages in a process of confronting and understanding her or his own worldview and carries the resulting self-awareness into counselor-client interactions. According to Richardson and Molinaro (1996), one's worldview is formed by her or his cultural value system. Katz (1985), Carter (1991) and others have identified values they attribute to the white American value system, arguing that such values also dominate counseling theory and practice. These include future time orientation, mastery over nature, individual relationships (Carter, 1991), as well as Protestant work ethic, Christian holidays, objectivity and rationality, rigid time schedules, and decisions based on majority rule (Katz, 1985). Because research has shown that white people tend to disregard whiteness as a cultural identifier, and thus do not recognize a unique white cultural value system, white counselors may be unaware of these characteristics in themselves (Katz, 1985). This process is especially difficult for white counselors who have found comfort in mainstream white culture and have never examined their value system and white privilege (Richardson and Molinaro, 1996; McIntosh, 1988). Wrenn (1985) and Richardson and Molinaro (1996) suggest that counselors who are not aware of their own cultural value system tend to assume that their values are universal and are thus unable to effectively adapt to a client with a different set of values. According to Richardson and Molinaro (1996), the third prerequisite for white multicultural counselors is an exploration of white racial identity. Sabnani, Ponterotto and Borodovsky (1991), Helms (1984, 1990), and Ponterotto (1988) have proposed that a white counselor's multicultural competetence is strongly affected by her or his racial identity development. In a study to test this hypothesis, Ottavi, Pope-Davis and Dings (1994) surveyed 128 white counseling trainees, measuring both their white racial identity attitudes as well as their multicultural skills, awareness, relationships, and knowledge. They found that white racial identity development as an important factor in multicultural counseling competence (Ottavi et al., 1994). The literature indicates that the exploration of one's worldview, cultural values, and racial identity development is a long and difficult task for all counselors, and moreso for white counselors (Sabnani et al., 1991). Still, it is a necessary and vital process toward achieving multicultural counseling competence and being more inclusive in counseling practice (Richardson and Molinaro, 1996). Developing a stronger sense of self-awareness prepares counselors for understanding the culture and experiences of clients, improving both the process and outcome of counselor-client interactions (McRae and Johnson, 1991). White Teachers and Multicultural Education The literature regarding whiteness and multicultural teaching, like the literature regarding researchers and counselors, focuses on the need for self-analysis and awareness (Sleeter, 1996; McIntyre, 1997; McLaren; 1995, Haymes, 1995). McIntyre (1997) challenges white teachers "to be more self-reflective about our own understandings about race and racism and for us to challenge our own constructions about what it means to be white in this country" (p. 14). Sleeter (1996) agrees, explaining that white educators need to become more aware of our own "biases, limitations, and vested interests" (p. 152). One such limitation which white educators carry into classrooms is a worldview and awareness constrained by our own experiences with society and discrimination and inconsistent with the experiences of students of color (Sleeter, 1995). Sleeter and McLaren (1995) place some of the responsibility for this on multicultural education as a field of inquiry which currently fails to address the identities and interests of white multicultural education advocates. Sleeter (1996, 1995), McIntyre (1997), Lawrence (1997), McLaren (1995) and Haymes (1995) have examined the present level of white identity development, multicultural awareness and understanding of white teachers and white pre-service teachers, noting areas of consistent unawareness among white teachers and explaining how this unawareness manifests itself in the teachers' attitudes and teaching practices. Sleeter (1996) summarizes the consistent areas of unawareness among white teachers, identifying four interconnected concepts white teachers have difficulty grasping. The first area of unawareness, according to Sleeter, is the "historic roots of racist opportunity structures" (1996, p. 139). She suggests that white Americans, whose roots in this country are for the most part a result of voluntary immigration, prefer to assume that all others descend from immigrants as well (Sleeter, 1996). We avoid considering the lasting effects of slavery and conquest because doing so "calls into question the legitimacy of the very foundation of much of white people's lives" (Sleeter, 1996, p. 140). Sleeter (1996) describes this foundation as an opportunity structure which historically has allowed for the upward mobility of European descendants at the expense of everyone else. McIntyre (1997) focuses this argument back on education, arguing that white teachers must re-examine "the system of whiteness that is the bedrock of the education system in the United States" (p. 13). She suggests that white educators tend to "perform the multicultural tricks" without considering how our race positions us in a place of greater opportunity within and outside of the education system (McIntyre, 1997, p. 13). The second area of unawareness identified by Sleeter is "the nature and impact of discrimination" (1996, p. 141). She suggests that white teachers tend to underestimate the effects of discrimination, seeing it only as individual acts of prejudice instead of daily life experiences which minimize opportunity (Sleeter, 1996, p. 141). According to Sleeter, we tend to believe that the differences in financial and social success among Americans result from individual effort in a context of equal opportunity (1996, p. 141). If we begin to develop an understanding of discrimination as a systemic issue, we must also confront the un-level playing field which affords us greater opportunity than people of color. In the classroom, this means confronting how some of our well-meaning teaching practices, such as treating all students alike, attributing all success to hard work and encouraging individuality without addressing the importance of group identification, may play into the systemic discrimination against people of color in schools (McIntyre, p. 132). The significance of group membership is another concept white teachers have difficulty grasping, according to Sleeter (1996, p. 143). Because American ideology is very individualistic (Sleeter, 1996), group identification is often ignored, especially by white people who are not constantly reminded about being the "other" in terms of race and ethnicity. A common statement made by white teachers is that we are "colorblind," seeing only kids, not colors (Sleeter, 1996; McIntyre, 1997). The result of this approach is a failure by white teachers to directly address the ethnic and racial identities and cultures of their students (Sleeter, 1996; McIntyre, 1997), instead focusing on differences in foods, holidays, clothes, and other surface-level cultural themes without relating them to race or ethnicity. Such a focus allows white teachers to minimize multicultural education to discussions on differences with little social consequence and to continue to ignore how group membership helps shape the lives of everyone involved, including both those who are privileged because of it and those who are discriminated against because of it (Sleeter, 1996). According to Sleeter, the last of the concepts which white teachers tend to misunderstand is the "nature of culture" (1996, p.145). In a 1990 study, Richard Alba found that the most recognized of cultural experiences, as defined by white people, is eating ethnic foods (cited by Sleeter, 1996, p. 145). The literature suggests that this limited view of culture manifests itself in education, as well, where even "multicultural education" has become simply a celebration of ethnic foods and festivals (Sleeter, 1996; Sleeter and McLaren, 1995, Haymes, 1995). We fail to understand culture as the "the totality of a people's experience" including "its history, literature, language, philosophy, religion, and so forth" (Sleeter, 1996, p. 146). Because we have been so entrenched in white culture, through institutions such as the media and our own education, and because we take that culture for granted, we tend exist without any knowledge of traditionally non-represented cultures (Sleeter, 1996). An often unexamined consequence of this for white educators is that we continue to teach from an assumption of our culture as the "norm" or neutral, while we use "diverse" or "different" to describe all things non-white (Haymes, 1995; Sleeter, 1996; McIntyre, 1997), a message clearly heard by the "other" students. In response to these points of unawareness for white teachers, the literature suggests approaches for white teachers to move toward greater awareness and self-analysis. white educators must first focus on personal growth and analysis before attempting to bring these messages into the classroom. Sleeter (1996) and McLaren (1995) insist that while our tendency is to work toward "converting" others, this process is often used to avoid confronting ourselves. As part of this process, Sleeter (1996) and McIntyre (1997) suggest that white teachers should dialog and collaborate with teachers of color. As this process takes us toward greater white racial identity development, we must model white identity in a positive way for our students (Bollin and Finkel, 1995). McIntyre asks white educators to support professional development activities which work toward awareness and show us how to "practice what we, as educators, teach" (1997, p. 148). When our self-analysis work is underway, we should turn our concerns toward wider social action. McIntyre (1997) challenges white educators to confront the teaching profession itself, and to take responsibility for systemic discrimination in our schools. Sleeter (1996) encourages white educators to work at a more individual level, mentoring other white people at difficult places in their racial identity development, but not losing sight that ending discrimination will take large scale collective political action.