On the sociology of white privilege and making an argument on how it connects back to sociology and how privilege operates
on the sociology of white privilege and making an argument on how it connects back to sociology and how privilege operates.
6-7 pages
due: November 29
-
ResearchSummaryPaperDirections.pdf
-
https-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpmcarticlesPMC4157125.webloc
-
https-books.google.combookshlenlridhSwJKwwjVl0CoifndpgPP9dqscholarlyarticlesonwhiteprivilegeotsZb3QEu9G2hsig3XlynNrfYlzxAJvK4zIS3i6-98Evonepageqffalse.webloc
-
Duster-TheMorphingPropertiesofWhiteness.pdf
-
constructingwhiteness.pdf
-
understanding-white-privilege.pdf
-
Hagerman-Whitefamiliesandracecolourblindandcolourconsciousapproachestowhiteracialsocialization.pdf
-
Lindner-Defining-Whiteness-Perspective-on-Privilege-2.pdf
Research Summary Paper Guidelines SOC146: Sociology of Privilege Dr. Tristan Bridges scenario for the assignment For this assignment, I’m asking you to investigate a specific type of privilege (e.g., white privilege, cisgender privilege, gender privilege, sexual privilege, elite privilege) or privilege associated with a particular location or group. This might be a topic that we have superficially covered during one of the weeks of class, but you are welcome to select a topic we did not as specifically address as well (e.g., able-bodied privilege). The idea behind this project is that you will look into this domain of privilege in a bit more depth for the final project and your task is to write about how privilege is studied there and/or what has been found relative to the ways we have learned to think and write about privilege sociologically in this course. So, you’ll be putting a specific body of work on one piece privilege into conversation with this larger body of work we’re examining this quarter to think about privilege as a sociological phenomenon.
DIRECTIONS outside resources For this paper, I would like you to collect at least 3 outside sources. And, unless you have a good reason, I’d like all three of your outside sources to be in the form of academic journal articles published on the topic in which are interested. It will be smart – when possible – to look for “review articles” that make an argument about the state of scholarship on a specific topic. So, for instance, in lecture, I brought up France Winddance Twine and Charles Gallagher’s (2008) article, “The Future of Whiteness: A Map of the ‘Third Wave’” (Ethnic and Racial Studies 31.1: 4-24). These synthetic pieces can be useful in helping you wrap your head around the conversations and discussions that are – in any field – bigger than a single article. Regardless of whether you discover a review article or not, you want to make sure you are finding articles that can productively be put in conversation in a paper in which you will summarize some of what we know in that corner of sociology and then use the work we have been reading and discussing in class this quarter to specifically consider how privilege operates where you are looking at it relative to other places we have examined privilege. formatting ~6-7 pages, double-spaced, 12 point, Times New Roman font, with 1-inch page margins.
assignment elements There are a few different elements of this assignment you will be required to complete and submit for this assignment. I am listing these elements below so you understand what each of them is – as each will be evaluated when you submit the formal write-up. These elements are listed in the order they should appear in your paper.
• thesis or topic statement and justification – Whether or not you see yourself as making a specific argument in this paper, I want you to have a clear paragraph that explains where the paper is going. This paragraph will answer the question “What sort of privilege will we be learning about in this paper?” and you will also tell us what specific issues related to a sociology of privilege are worth discussing when examining the privilege you are writing about here. So, you might argue that a particular type of privilege is visible when examining the privilege you focus on (like spatial privilege, moral privilege). Or you might suggest that an aspect of privilege we learned about is highlighted in your topic (like the institutionalization of privilege, or the relative (in)visibility of privilege debate we have described).
• summary of outside sources – In this section, I want you to clearly summarize what you learned from the work you considered for this assignment. Rather than just summarizing the articles you read, however, you’ll be specifically pulling information relevant to thinking about privilege specifically. This will involve two elements: (1) summary of outside resources and (2) synthesis of outside resources. The first is clear, but to accomplish the second, you need to demonstrate how all of the sources you summarize in this portion of the paper can be put into productive conversation to help us understand something about the privilege you’re studying in a way that looking at any one of these resources alone might not demonstrate.
• synthesis with course material – In this section of the paper, I’m interested in you connecting with other course materials to address the specific issues to do with privilege that you are writing about in more depth and speaking beyond the specific case study of privilege you have selected. This means that you’ll want to connect with other readings from the course on the same topic (if you picked a topic we addressed). But regardless of that, I want you to consider what more general debates about what privilege is and how it operates in social life to structure systems of inequalities. This might mean that the privilege you are writing about exhibits some property or has been studied in a way that is radically different from much of what we read. Or, conversely, you might
discover that the privilege you are writing about shares some general properties with other forms of privilege we have read and learned about. Be specific about what you are learning.
• conclusion – Here, you want to reiterate the thesis or topic statement justification and remind us generally what we have learned from considering the privilege you have written about for this assignment.
• references – Please list the outside readings, course readings and lectures you cited in your paper in APA format.
,,,
Critical Sociology, Volume 32, Issue 4 also available online
© 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden www.brill.nl
* For correspondence: Teresa J. Guess, Rm 710 SSB Tower, Department of Sociology,
University of Missouri-St. Louis, One University Drive, St. Louis, MO 63121–4400, USA,
E-mail: [email protected]
The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent,
Racism by Consequence
Teresa J. Guess* (University of Missouri-St. Louis)
Abstract
The discipline of Sociology has generated great contributions
to scholarship and research about American race relations.
Much of the theorizing on American race relations in America
is expressed in binary terms of black and white. Historically,
the study of American race relations typically problematizes
the “othered” status, that is, the non-white status in America’s
racial hierarchy. However, the sociology of race relations has
historically failed to take into account both sides of the
black/white binary paradigm when addressing racial inequality.
In other words, in the case of race, it becomes difficult to see
the forest for the trees. Thus, in Sociology, we find less schol-
arship about the role “whiteness as the norm” plays in sustaining
social privilege beyond that which is accorded marginalized
others. In order to examine the historical black/white binary
paradigm of race in America, it is important to understand its
structuration. This article extends the applicability of sociolo-
gies of knowledge (Thomas Theorem, social constructionism)
and Gidden’s structuration theory to inform a postmodern
analysis of America’s binary racial paradigm.
CS 32,4_f7_649-673I 11/13/06 1:47 PM Page 649
650 • Guess
Key words: race, whiteness, whiteness studies, structuration
theory, social constructionism.
“America is inherently a “white” country: in character, in structure, in culture.
Needless to say, black Americans create lives of their own. Yet as a people,
they face boundaries and constrictions set by the white majority. America’s
version of apartheid, while lacking overt legal sanction, comes closest to the
system even now . . . reformed in the land of its invention.”
(Hacker 1992:4)
Introduction
Sociology engages in studies of racial inequality, however, the sociology
of race relations has historically failed to observe and report on the social
construction of both sides of America’s black/white binary paradigm
(Perea 1997) when addressing racial inequality. In other words, in the
case of race, it becomes difficult for many to see the forest for the trees.
Thus, in Sociology, we find less scholarship about the role “whiteness as
the norm” plays in sustaining social privilege beyond that which is
accorded marginalized others. The question raised by the black/white
binary paradigm is: to what extent has sociology participated in knowl-
edge creation that results in preservation or normalization of America’s
racial hierarchies?
This paper focuses on the social construction of “race” with a special
attention to the social construction of whiteness; the political significance
of “race” and whiteness in America; and, the implications of both as inter-
vening structural barriers in social interaction patterns and in formal and
informal social organization in American society. Conventional theoretical
approaches (functionalism, conflict, and interactionist theories) to the study
of American race relations fail to take into account the historical conscience
collective of “whiteness as social norm.”
Sociologies of knowledge inform my approach to the relevance of
“whiteness and race” in American society (Mannheim 1985). In exam-
ining the connections between the process of social construction and
the social construction of whiteness, I rely on W. I. Thomas’ (1928, 1923)
emphasis on definition of the situation, Berger and Luckmann’s (1966)
theory of social reality construction and Giddens’ (1984) structuration
theory to analyze the emergence of whiteness as a socially significant
structure that mitigates life chances in American society. Research in the
specialty area of whiteness studies examines the social, economic, and
CS 32,4_f7_649-673I 11/13/06 1:47 PM Page 650
political significance of whiteness and its connection to the persistence of
racism in American society (Bhabha 1998; Bonnett 1998, 1996; Delgado
1995; Feagin 1991, 2000, 2001; Feagin and Vera 1995; Frankenberg 1993;
Ignatiev 1996; Kincheloe 1999; Montagu 1952; Perea 1997; Roediger
1991; Stanfield 1985; van den Berghe 1967). In contrast, conventional
approaches to the study of “race” in America tend to ignore “whiteness”
by treating it simply as a given, and even as a benign factor in “race”
relations. Such scholarship tends to problematize the “other” in relation
to whiteness. Alternatively, post-structuralists and critical theorists tend to
problematize whiteness in relation to the “other.”
An archaeology of knowledge (Foucault 1972) about race and white-
ness provides a useful strategy for uncovering ways in which symbolic
meaning systems, (e.g., “race” and whiteness) define, legitimize, and reproduce
themselves across generations. Over the past 400 years, scholarship on
“race” and whiteness has produced “human traces.” “What people do, how
they behave and structure their daily lives, and even how humans are
affected by certain ideological stances can all be observed in traces people
either intentionally or inadvertently leave behind” (Berg 1989:85). This
analysis investigates sedimentary traces of socially constructed knowledge
about “race” and whiteness.
Sedimentary traces of socially constructed knowledge about “race” and
whiteness have been documented in America’s history of slavery, Jim Crow,
segregation, and discrimination based on the ascription of some meas-
ure of social de-valuation imposed on non-white peoples and normatively
defined as racial characteristics. Under these conditions, one could argue
that many Americans have been negatively affected by ‘racism by intent.’
Racism by intent operates at the level of the individual and is mani-
fested as racial prejudice and discrimination toward non-white individu-
als. This argument, however, looks at the consequences of ‘racism by
intent.’ Here, I examine the extent to which racism by intent produces
structural consequences in the social milieu. Such a focus reveals that
the idea and conception of whiteness derives from the dynamics of racism
by intent, a type of racism that is founded upon custom and tradition,
but shatters against social scientific principles.
Racism by consequence, operates at the macro level of society, and
represents an historical evolution. It constitutes a gradual shift away from
a conscious, almost personalized conviction of the inferiority of an “oth-
ered” “race.” Such conviction expresses itself in attitudes of prejudice
and is acted out in discriminatory behavior. In its place follows social
practices that are essentially depersonalized through institutionalization.
As a result, racial prejudices may decline overtime, yet more subtle patterns
Social Construction of Whiteness • 651
CS 32,4_f7_649-673I 11/13/06 1:47 PM Page 651
652 • Guess
of discrimination persist, supported by the inertia of custom, bureaucratic
procedure, impersonal routine, and even law. The result of racism by
intent has overtime informed institutional cultures and practices that rest
on assumptions of white superiority over non-white ethnic groups. At the
institutional level, racism by consequence tends typically not to be rec-
ognized by ‘white’ Americans, and may not necessarily be triggered by
intent. Racism by consequence then is reflected in differential educa-
tional opportunities, economic differentials between whites and non-whites,
residential segregation, health care access, and death rate differentials
between whites and non-whites.
With the foregoing assumptions in mind, types of otherwise unasked
questions posed by critical theorists regarding American “race” relations
include: what is race; what is whiteness; what is non-whiteness; how are
these ascriptions linked to the social and political significance of “race”
and whiteness? How is it that 143 years after Lincoln signed the Eman-
cipation Proclamation (1863), American society remains stratified by
the boundaries of whiteness and non-whiteness (Bennett 1988:469)? The
aforementioned questions trigger “the sociologist’s call to arms” in the
construction of knowledge as presented by Berger and Luckmann who
suggested that:
. . . the sociology of knowledge must first . . . concern itself with what peo-
ple ‘know’ as ‘reality’ in their everyday . . . lives. In other words, common-
sense ‘knowledge’ . . . must be the central focus for the sociology of knowledge.
It is precisely this ‘knowledge’ that constitutes the fabric of meanings with-
out which no society could exist. The sociology of knowledge therefore, must
concern itself with the social construction of reality. (Berger and Luckmann
1966:15)
Given this ‘call to arms,’ basic questions on the social construction of
knowledge about “race” and whiteness must be taken into account. These
questions take various forms although their substance is quite similar.
We can ask, what is social construction? What is racism? What does
whiteness have to do with either “race” or racism? Does American society,
or merely one set of its constituents, benefit from the ascriptions of
whiteness and the practice of racism? Sociologically, the construction of
responses to such questions requires analytically powerful, sensitizing
(Blumer 1954) and core sociological concepts.
The works of W. I. Thomas (1923, 1928), Berger and Luckmann
(1966) and Anthony Giddens (1984) provide the sensitizing concepts that
inform this analysis. Definition of the situation, social construction, and structuration are concepts that work as useful analytic lenses to explore discourse in
“whiteness studies,” sometimes referred to as “anti-racist” scholarship. Both
CS 32,4_f7_649-673I 11/13/06 1:47 PM Page 652
Social Construction of Whiteness • 653
“race” and whiteness are socially defined notions that have socially significant
consequences for Americans. Employing Giddens’ (1984) perspective, we
can investigate a specific structuration, the interactive and dynamic duality of whiteness and “race” in American society.
“Whiteness studies [explore] what it means to be White in the United
States and the global community,” and constitute “a growing body of
books, articles, courses, and academic conferences,” (Rodriguez 1999:20).
This exploration of what it means to be “white” in American society
raises a key question: Does American society, or merely one set of its
constituents, benefit from the social construction of whiteness? According
to one critic, “the critique of whiteness, . . . attempts to displace the nor-
mativity of the white position by seeing it as a strategy of authority rather
than an authentic or essential ‘identity’ “(Bhabha 1998:21). A cadre of
scholars (as noted above), some of whom identify themselves as white,
are raising and responding to critical questions about the social and polit-
ical significance of whiteness in American society.
The goal of whiteness studies is to reveal and to share new knowledge
about a seemingly under-investigated social phenomenon; namely, the
social construction of whiteness. In a 1997 California Law Review article,
Juan Perea suggests that “In the midst of profound demographic changes,
it is time to question whether the Black/White binary paradigm of race
fits our highly variegated current and future population. Our ‘normal
science’ of writing on race, at odds with both history and demographic
reality, needs reworking” (1244). As sociologists, creators of knowledge,
and educators, do we dare question whether the time has come for us
to reconsider our normal science of writing on “race?” Does our schol-
arship on “race” and whiteness need to be re-worked, updated and, as
some have argued, even drastically reconceptualized? Should the under-
graduate and graduate students of the Class of 2020 be subjected to
what now appears as mis-education on the role that “race” and whiteness
play in American society?
Definition of the Situation:
The Social ‘Realities’ of Race and Whiteness
It is now well accepted by social scientists, that the notions of “race”
and whiteness, in their social significance, are guided not so much by any
biological foundation as by the social meanings that are ascribed to them.
That is, they depend on the social definition their situation is accorded.
Uncovering or deconstructing the social construction of “race” and whiteness
begins with a definition of the situation or context in which these ideas
CS 32,4_f7_649-673I 11/13/06 1:47 PM Page 653
654 • Guess
tend to define social interaction patterns. It was W. I. Thomas (Thomas
and Thomas 1928:572) who suggested that, “If [people] define situations
as real, they are real in their consequences.” As social facts, both “race”
and whiteness define real situations in American society; and, as real sit-
uations, both “race” and whiteness issue into real social consequences.
As real situations, the social construction of “race” and whiteness and
their social significance are intimately linked to the history of social organ-
ization in American society. Blumer observed that the organization of
American “race” relations emerged from the intersection of three significant
events in history. He opined that these events were “the conquest of the
Indians, the forced importation of Africans, [and] the more or less solicited
coming of Europeans, Asians, and Latinos” (Lyman 1977:25–37).
Discourse from anthropology, history and sociology characterizes the
concept, “race,” as having a modern history. According to Roy (2001:81),
“[r]ace was created mainly by Anglo-Europeans, especially English, soci-
eties in the 16th and 19th centuries.” In spite of several centuries of use
as a concept representing a natural phenomenon, sociological studies on
“race” critique the notion as lacking scientific clarity and specificity.
Rather than emerging from a scientific perspective, the notion, “race,”
is informed by historical, social, cultural, and political values. Thus, we
find that the concept “race” is based on socially constructed, but socially,
and certainly scientifically, outmoded beliefs about the inherent superi-
ority and inferiority of groups based on racial distinctions (Montagu 1952,
1963; Gossett 1963; Bernal 1987; Bennett 1988).
While outmoded today, in the past, the rationale for convictions about
racial superiority and inferiority are linked to Herbert Spencer’s 1852
theory of population ( Jary and Jary 1991:486). Spencer’s theories of
natural selection predated Darwinian theory by six years (ibid.). His the-
ory of populations’ struggles for existence and fitness for survival came
to be recognized as Social Darwinism. Therefore, discourse analysis of
knowledge about “race” and whiteness must take into account the saliency
of Social Darwinism in social science theorizing about “race” and whiteness.
It turns out that theories asserting the ‘survival of the fittest’ explana-
tion of population and societal development were translated into “nature’s
indispensable method for producing superior men, superior nations, and
superior races” (Gossett 1963:145).
Discussion of the social construction of whiteness cannot be complete
unless we acknowledge the social and political significance of “race” in
America. Whatever its scientific validity, “race” is a social fact in which
the social and political significance of whiteness plays a critical role. Classical
scholars have remarked about “race” as a social fact. Thus, according
to Durkheim, the concepts, “race” and whiteness, are social facts.
CS 32,4_f7_649-673I 11/13/06 1:47 PM Page 654
Social Construction of Whiteness • 655
A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on
the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is
general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its
own right independent of its individual manifestations. (Durkheim, [1895]
1938:13)
In The Division of Labor ([1933] 1984:246–257), Durkheim wrote about
the saliency of “race” as a social fact. Durkheim scholar, Jennifer Lehmann,
observes that according to Durkheim, “[T]he word ‘race’ no longer cor-
responds to anything definite” (1995:569). Durkheim further suggested
that “race” was destined to disappear from modern society. However,
here we are, 113 years after the first publication of The Division of Labor,
and “race” remains very much a part of the organization of contempo-
rary society. Lehmann (1995:569) further explains that in Durkheim’s
view, “the hereditary transmission of innate, group-level characteristics –
racial structures – is supplanted by the social transmission of learned abilities – acquired structures – and by individual-level abilities – indi-
vidual structures.” (emphasis mine).
Similary, Weber ([1921] 1978) argued in Economy and Society, Chapter
V, that “race” is no more than a manifestation of norms of endogamy.
Endogamy is a cultural rule that encourages group members to marry
only persons within their group. Thus, above all other considerations,
group identity determines the extent to which one is an acceptable mar-
riage partner. Catholics prefer to marry Catholics, the wealthy prefer to
marry the wealthy, whites marry whites, and blacks marry blacks. In the
American binary paradigm of race (Perea 1997), the outcome of endogamy
perpetuates the structures of “race” and whiteness. Thus, norms of endogamy
become a primary mechanism for the perpetuation of “races” in America.
With reference to the role “race” plays in American society, Weber
remarked that “. . . this abhorrence on the part of Whites is socially
determined by the . . . tendency toward the monopolization of social
power and honor, a tendency which . . . happens to be linked to ‘race’
(Weber [1921] 1978:386).
Even in more recent times, it has also been argued that “just what
‘race’ means to those who study ‘race relations’ sociologically or social
psychologically, actually remains surprisingly unclear” (Bash 1979:194).
Seeing “race” as a metaphor to imply social hierarchy between blacks
and whites, van den Berghe (1967:6) observed “the sociologist might
regard racial distinction as a special case of invidious status differentiation” </
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.