Pursuing a Liberated (non-)Whiteness in a Pale Body: An Abolitionist Approach to the Problem of the Concerned White Person

Citation preview

Pursuing a Liberated (non-)Whiteness in a Pale Body An Abolitionist Approach to the Problem of the Concerned White Person Caleb Conner

April 27, 2020 Haverford College Political Science Department Senior Thesis Advisor: Craig Borowiak

Acknowledgements This thesis comes at the end of an extraordinarily tumultuous year and a transformative 4 years in college. I am very grateful for the people I’ve met over the course of 4 years here, and this thesis would not have been possible without the tremendous amount that I’ve learned from my friends and acquaintances over my time here at Haverford. It seems to me that I have certainly learned more from my relationships than from my classes, particularly in ways that have helped me to grow as a human, learning how to live in this pale-skinned body. I have learned a great deal about myself through this thesis process and the thoughts and experiences that motivated it and that have been motivated by it. Thank you to my family and my friends. Thank you Huey, among many others, for helping radicalize me. There are some that I would like to thank but feel I should leave unnamed, you know who you are. Thank you to the D.C. community for twice hosting formative political experiences of mine. Thank you Ingrid for being a rock and a light for me in the music department. Thank you Steve for making me feel like a good political scientist. Thank you Clara for teaching me to sing and offering encouragement as needed. Thank you Joshua for teaching for the revolution. Thank you Chanelle for introducing me to the world of education and for believing in me. (I know no one will see this but it feels good to say thank you!) Finally, thank you Craig for being a wonderfully patient, encouraging, and challenging thesis advisor. If only I had been a better advisee! Preface This thesis, of course, comes in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is further exposing many of the horrifying realities of racial capitalism. Although I don’t anticipate many people will read this thesis, I hope that I and others might be successful enough at spreading these ideas (which are certainly not mine alone) as to accelerate revolution. Having the spring semester drastically impacted by the pandemic stunted the growth of this thesis, which is reflected in its brevity and incompleteness. In particular, the end of the first chapter is extremely rough, as is much of that chapter’s contents and really everything in this thesis. I still think the ideas are worth sharing.

2

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2 Preface............................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1: Whiteness and White Supremacy.................................................................................. 8 The Production of Whiteness ...................................................................................................... 9 The Nature of Whiteness .......................................................................................................... 13 The Reproduction of Whiteness................................................................................................ 21 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 28 Chapter 2: Pursuing a Liberated non-Whiteness in a Pale Body .................................................. 30 White Allyship .......................................................................................................................... 32 Ideas for A Liberatory Framework of Solidarity ...................................................................... 38 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 43 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 44

3

Introduction What is the most damage I can do, given my biography, abilities, and commitments, to the racial order and rule of capital? Joel Olson (1967-2012)1 With the widespread influence of the Black Lives Matter movement and Indigenous resistance in the aftermath of Ferguson, Baltimore, and Standing Rock, as well as the rise of Donald Trump and resurgent white nationalism weighing heavily on the United States’ national consciousness, white people have recently been forced into confronting something they/we would rather not talk about: their/our own Whiteness. While many white people have chosen to ignore the realities of white supremacy and/or doubled down on reactionary racial politics such as those exemplified by Trump, a great number of white people have at least expressed a willingness to engage with the persistence of racism in the United States. While this group of white people range in ideology from moderates and conservatives to liberal Democrats to progressives and anarchists, for the purposes of this thesis I have chosen to unify them/us 2 under a shared identifier— “Concerned White People.” I chose this term because it emphasizes what all of these people share (concern about racism) without giving them/us credit for being anything other than concerned until proven otherwise. Further, since almost all of these people’s politics are aimed at preservation of the status quo with a few (in some cases many) social reforms, grouping all of them/us together emphasizes the fundamental similarity of their politics with respect to the abolition of Whiteness, white supremacy, and racial capitalism, which cannot be eradicated in isolation from one another. On a more positive note (I promise I am not writing this simply to tear down white people who might be convinced to fight racism), this term emphasizes

1 2

Joel Olson. Joel Olson Archive, February 13, 2019. https://joelolson.net/about/. I am one of these people, perhaps obviously.

4

that these people are all unified by their concern about racism, which I believe has the possibility to be mobilized into action. The Problem of the Concerned White Person Historically, the Concerned White Person (CWP) has had a limited role in organizing against white supremacy. Martin Luther King, Jr. himself famously wrote that he thought the “white moderate” (a term that certainly includes a decent swatch of CWPs) might be a graver danger to the civil rights movement than the Ku Klux Klan. 3 There have been notable exceptions, including the limited number of white Freedom Riders, the Young Patriots of the original Rainbow Coalition with the Black Panthers and Young Lords, and the Detroit Revolutionary Union Movement, among others. Nonetheless, a great many concerned white people have been caught up in the age-old question of “what is the white person to do to contribute to the struggle against racism?” and settled for a role on the sidelines, theoretically supportive but practically ineffective. What am I going to do in this Thesis? This thesis is my attempt to address the problem of the concerned white person. In order to address this problem, I will first discuss Whiteness itself, drawing out the relationship between Whiteness and white supremacy. This is the subject of my first chapter, which aims to illustrate the necessity of a political orientation aimed at the abolition of Whiteness as a means/end of abolishing white supremacy. I will then discuss and critique the popular ideology of white allyship, finally outlining what I’m calling a “liberatory framework of solidarity” that I hope

3

King, Martin Luther. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” African Studies Center. University of Pennsylvania. Accessed April 28, 2020. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html.

5

might be instructive for the CWP. It will be incomplete, and there will be holes in my evidence, but I hope that my arguments nonetheless carry weight (they certainly do for me). A Note on White Supremacy/Racial Capitalism/Settler Colonialism/Imperialism in the U.S./Turtle Island Context4,5 In her article “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy,” Andrea Smith articulates the nature of white supremacy as constituted by three distinct yet interrelated logics: Slavery/Capitalism, Genocide/Colonialism, and Orientalism/War. Slavery/Capitalism is a logic that “renders Black people as inherently slaveable—as nothing more than property.” 6 As Smith argues, the forms of slavery have changed over time, but the logic remains consistent. The logic of Genocide/Colonialism holds that indigenous peoples “must always be disappearing, in order to allow non-indigenous peoples rightful claim over this land.” 7 This pillar “serves as the anchor for [settler-]colonialism,” allowing those who are not native (especially white people) to feel they “can rightfully own indigenous peoples’ land.” 8 The final logic (although Smith is open to the possibility of other logics), that of Orientalism/War, “marks certain peoples or nations as inferior and as posing a constant threat to the well-being of empire,” thus placing the United States in a constant state of war both at home (against non-white immigrants) and abroad. 9 As will become clearer in the next chapter, Whiteness plays an inseparable role in all three of these logics. White supremacy, racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and imperialism are all crucial

4

For an account of the Indigenous creation story behind “Turtle Island,” see the first chapter of Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass, First edition (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Milkweed Editions, 2013). 5 Racial Capitalism: “The systematic process—ideological, judicial, military, and eventually scientific—through which the European baronial, aristocratic, and owning classes (i.e. the original feudal lords, whose descendants largely occupy the same class position) create the idea of inherently inferior human populations fit only for labor, first in Europe and then throughout the world” (Dr. Joshua Ramey, Lecture at Haverford College, 2/5/20). 6 Smith. Pg. 67. 7 Smith. Pg. 68. 8 Smith, Pg. 68. 9 Smith. Pg. 68-9.

6

parts of racism in the United States—perhaps racial capitalism best encompasses all 4 systems, since white supremacy, settler colonialism, and imperialism can all be argued to be components of it. It is beyond the scope of this thesis, unfortunately, to dive more in-depth into the interplay between these systems of racism. As a result, an imperfect use of terms proliferates this work. Anytime I use one or more of these words they should all be understood to be present, and in particular I want to emphasize that all forms of racism are tied to racial capitalism, through which racialization is used to create possibilities of exploitation and domination.

7

Chapter 1: Whiteness and White Supremacy In order to address what I’ve called the “problem of the Concerned White Person,” it is necessary to take a deeper look at the nature of Whiteness, both so that we can engage more meaningfully with the problem of being white (and understand why being white is a problem in the first place) and so that the personal and political activities discussed later in this thesis can be grounded in a clearer political orientation. In this chapter, I will seek to draw out the link between Whiteness and white supremacy, specifically in showing how Whiteness is inseparable from white supremacy. This chapter will chiefly focus on Whiteness, rather than white supremacy, in order to make the argument) that Whiteness itself must be abolished in order to abolish white supremacy and the connected systems of racial capitalism, and settler-colonialism. (and as such, any strategy of white solidarity with non-white people against racism that does not have as its aim or effect the abolition of Whiteness should consider that a flaw). In this discussion on Whiteness, however, I want to be clear that the point of white solidarity is not and should not be just the abolition of Whiteness as a term of identification, as this is not guaranteed to abolish white supremacy. In fact, one of the primary ways in which Whiteness reproduces itself in contemporary times is by seeking to become invisible, and/or to position itself as a neutral identity marker in a post-racial world. I do not want to argue that we should just stop calling white people “white people;” rather, I want to argue that any effort to destroy white supremacy must as part of its effort do away with Whiteness itself, the “racialized social identity that is positioned as superior relative to other ‘races’ within a system of racial hierarchy.” 10

10

"Whiteness". In obo in Sociology. 27 Jan. 2020. .

8

In the first section of this chapter, I will discuss the production (i.e. invention, creation) of Whiteness, charting in broad strokes its evolution from legally sanctioned category of racial privilege to its more subtle functions in the post-civil rights era. Part of the aim of this section is to show clearly that Whiteness, as a racialized social identity, was created by settler-colonial, racial capitalist power structures as a means of ensuring their longevity by cultivating a relationship of mutual interest with a particular subsection of the working/impoverished/enslaved class—rather than a means of positive cultural self-identification developed organically by European settlers over time. In the next section, I will review the literature on Whiteness in order to show the many ways in which Whiteness and white supremacy reproduce one another. In the final section, I will briefly discuss the reproduction of Whiteness. Prior to the introduction of the many constraints brought on by the COVID-19 crisis, this was to be a chapter on its own in order to provoke a discussion of the ways certain theories and practices of white allyship played into the reproduction of Whiteness. I have preserved a limited discussion here to offer a deeper perspective on the nature of Whiteness and engage the possibility of disrupting certain mechanisms of its reproduction as a means of working towards its abolition. The Production of Whiteness11 The Invention of “White” When the first colonizers arrived on Turtle Island (in what is now called the United States), they did not conceive of themselves as white. Although racialism 12 and the idea of a racial order predate the colonization of the Americas, the concept of Whiteness developed in

11

This section depends heavily on Joel Olson’s The Abolition of White Democracy—although his work is excellent, I regret that a more diverse set of sources is not drawn on. See Theodore W. Allen, The Invention of the White Race, 2nd ed. (New York: Verso, 2012) for an depth account from which Olson’s work draws heavily. 12 Racialism is generally differentiated from racism in that it does not imply necessarily a hierarchical racial order, but does insist on the existence of race.

9

colonial America differs in crucial ways from previous conceptualizations of race and racial order.13 Anti-Blackness had already emerged in Europe in the 1400’s, but while African slaves became popular, Eastern Europeans were still a huge part of the slave trade—in fact, slavery was so strongly associated with “Slavs” in Western Europe that English and other Western European languages actually derived their terms for “slave” from Slav. 14 Pale-skinned Slavs, Irish, and other Europeans were degraded and used in many of the same ways as Africans in Europe, and “racial” distinctions tended to be around “British” versus “Irish” rather than “Whiteness” or notWhiteness. In 1619, Africans in the U.S. colonies tended to have most of the same rights as Europeans—they were not all enslaved, and even those who were occasionally had the ability to purchase their or their children’s freedom. 15 By 1700, Africans were “definitively distinguished socially, economically, and politically from other colonists.” 16 To understand how Whiteness was produced, this development has to be explained. Joel Olson argues that the Virginia elite created “Whiteness” in response to economic concerns and a volatile social order in mid-1600s Virginia. The system of indentured servitude that plantation owners relied on for “cheap, exploitable, and stable” labor was failing to meet demand. 17 Meanwhile, a large class of freed Englishmen who were landless and without spouses were growing rebellious, and imported African and West Indian slaves helped solve the labor problem but added to the potential for rebellion. Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 demonstrated the danger an alliance of poor Europeans and Africans posed to the Virginia elite, with a cross-ethnic

13

Robinson, Cedric J. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. (Chapel Hill, N.C: University of North Carolina Press, 2000). 14 Ibram X Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. (New York, NY: Bold Type Books, 2017), 23. See also Robinson, Black Marxism, Ch. 1. 15 Joel Olson, The Abolition of White Democracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004), 34. 16 Olson, 34. 17 Olson, 35-36.

10

militia turning their arms on the rich. 18 In response to this rebellion and the possibility of class unity among the poor and enslaved, “Virginia’s elite deliberately attempted to divide the dangerous freemen from the dangerous slaves with a ‘screen of racial contempt.’” 19 Between 1670 and 1705, the colonial assembly of Virginia passed laws excluding non-Africans and nonIndians from enslavement, gave “Christian” (a label only available to the English) servants power over enslaved Africans, seized all property belonging to Africans and distributed it to English servants, forbade Englishwomen for having children with African fathers, and tied children’s social status to the status of their mother, in addition to denying Africans and Indians rights in voting, the courts, and the possession of firearms. In legally subjugating Africans and Indians and intentionally stoking racial division among the populace, the Virginia elite used their power in order to produce structural racism and race itself. By affixing lifetime slavery to African phenotypes and affixing the right to own property to English phenotypes, regardless of class (but in exchange for policing—ensuring the status of—enslaved Africans) they created a new class of people that came to know themselves as “white,” unified by a collective interest in the continuation of race-based slavery. This system and ideology quickly spread throughout the colonial U.S.20 Changing, Shifting Whiteness: Herrenvolk Democracy While the colonial Virginia assembly may have created Whiteness in the late 1600s, Whiteness was not yet what it is today. “White” people were initially defined by their freedom from formal slavery, but the meaning and function of Whiteness has been changing and shifting ever since. The initial role of Whiteness was formalized during the early years of the United

18

Bacon’s rebellion was also anti-indigenous—I don’t mean to present it as anything other than what it was. Olson, 36. 20 Olson, 36-37. 19

11

States into what historians have called a Herrenvolk Democracy, one that is “democratic for the master race but tyrannical for subordinate groups.”21 The concept of Herrenvolk Democracy typifies the contradiction that has plagued the United States from its founding—the rhetoric of egalitarianism and democracy, the “land of the free,” has dominated public discourse from the beginning, at the same time that millions of Black people and Indigenous North Americans, among others, have been categorically excluded from any pretensions of freedom or democratic participation. As Olson argues, in the U.S. context Herrenvolk Democracy established an equivalence between Whiteness and citizenship, particularly in the Jacksonian era, when broader political equality was extended to White men (and to a lesser extent White women) at the same time that such equality was stripped from not-White people. 22 As Noel Ignatiev has documented, Irish immigrants illustrated the dynamics of this era by earning full citizenship rights by “becoming” white via their commitment to anti-Blackness. 23 The nature of Whiteness associated with Herrenvolk Democracy lasted until the civil rights movement. Changing, Shifting Whiteness: Post-Civil Rights Movement “Color-Blind” Democracy With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the era of Herrenvolk Democracy ended as Whiteness ceased to be an officially state-sanctioned form of superior standing.24 Nonetheless, in 2020 it is as obvious as ever that Whiteness brings a certain set of benefits and not-Whiteness brings a certain set of oppressions. This is a result of a change in the nature of Whiteness as it has adapted to a new set of rules. Although “the essential principle of the new color-blind democracy is the formal political equality of all citizens,

21

Olson, 42. Olson, 39-47. 23 Olson, 45. Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York: Routledge, 1995). 24 Olson, 66. 22

12

achieved through the removal of official racial barriers,” the color-blind democracy does not attack structural racism or the legacy of state-sanctioned racism, but rather claims race, racial differences, and racial inequality are “prepolitical,”—natural outcomes of “ordinary practices and individual choices.”25 Whiteness has now transformed from a form of standing—closely tied to citizenship—to a norm “in which racial privilege is sedimented into the background of social life.”26 Whiteness today, although officially a “politically neutral racial category,” has simply changed its nature in the face of challenges, begging the question of how Whiteness continues to be reproduced in a society where race is supposed to have no bearing on our lives. 27 The Nature of Whiteness Having discussed the historical development of Whiteness, in this section I will address the nature of Whiteness, chiefly via a review of some of the main ideas about Whiteness put forward in the field of Whiteness studies. As Rasmussen et al. write in the introduction to their anthology The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness, “there is an inherent definitional slipperiness and instability to whiteness, just as there is with all categories of race.” 28 Scholarly research on Whiteness, particularly through the field of Critical Whiteness studies, but also through scientific study, has firmly established that Whiteness (and “race” generally) is socially constructed and in a scientific sense not “real,” in the sense that there is no biological or other evidence that those now deemed members of the “white race” are bound to each other by anything other than arbitrary racial affiliation (e.g. there is less genetic difference between the “average” white and

25

Olson. 71-75. Olson. 74. 27 Olson, 73. 28 Rasmussen, Birgit Brander, et al., eds. The making and unmaking of whiteness. (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), 8. 26

13

Black person than exists within each group). 29 Nonetheless, clearly “it is a social construction with real effects that has become a powerful organizing principle around the world.” 30 While most scholars agree with this claim that Whiteness is socially constructed, many different definitions/conceptualizations of Whiteness have been built on top of it, some complimentary and others contradictory. Within the Whiteness studies literature, Whiteness has been theorized as a form of privilege, a form of property or a property interest, violence/terror, a power relation/structural position, the state of being a beneficiary to the “Racial Contract” that holds society together, the institutionalization of colonialism, among others31. With so many definitions/conceptualizations offered, it is important to emphasize that Whiteness is a moving target—it played a different role as determining citizen/slave status pre-civil war than it now does as a norm, for example. 32 As I present and analyze different definitions/conceptions of Whiteness, I bear in my mind Frankenberg’s argument that Whiteness is “a process, not a ‘thing,’[it is] plural rather than singular in nature.”33 That being said, this section (much as the rest of this chapter) makes the argument that white supremacy is a fundamental aspect of the nature of Whiteness, inseparable from Whiteness itself. Foundations In their Oxford Bibliographies entry on Whiteness, Cancelmo and Mueller define Whiteness as “a racialized social identity that is positioned as superior relative to other ‘races’

29

Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical White Studies: Looking behind the Mirror (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1997), xvii. 30 Rasmussen et al, 2. 31 Each of these will be discussed, with citation, in this section. 32 Olson, The Abolition of White Democracy. 33 Frankenberg, 1.

14

within a system of racial hierarchy.” 34 Most scholars of Whiteness agree with this definition. Cancelmo and Mueller point to Whiteness first as a “social identity,” rejecting any antiquated notion of Whiteness as a biological race or inherent quality, then to the tight bond between Whiteness and white supremacy—Whiteness is “positioned as superior relative to other ‘races’ within a system of racial hierarchy” (white supremacy/racial capitalism/settler-colonialism). According to this definition, then, there can be no Whiteness without white supremacy, since Whiteness in fact depends upon the subordinate position of not-white ‘races’ to carry any substance. Cancelmo and Mueller then elaborate: Indeed, because race is socially constructed—and not biological—whiteness can be understood as the result of social and cultural processes, rooted in a global history of European35 colonialism, imperialism, and transatlantic slavery, and maintained today through various institutions, ideologies, and everyday social practices. 36 Without needing great detail, Cancelmo and Mueller point towards concrete events and processes widely accepted as having helped constitute Whiteness, rooted in various histories of European domination an exploitation. They also go beyond an explanation of the production of Whiteness to allude to the reproduction of Whiteness through institutions, ideologies, and social practices—a crucial aspect of contemporary Whiteness in a world where systems of racial domination are largely established and racism is simultaneously widely condemned and upheld by much of the global power structure. W.E.B. Du Bois’s essay The Souls of White Folk (in addition to being one of the earliest published studies of whiteness) looms large over the literature on Whiteness. In the essay, he

34

"Whiteness". In obo in Sociology. 27 Jan. 2020. . 35 Even the idea of “European” people or “Europe” is socially constructed—a myth created by the ruling classes of history, arguably serving the purpose of furthering European (and now white) supremacy and racialism. For more, see Robinson, Black Marxism, Chs. 1-2. 36 "Whiteness". In obo in Sociology. 27 Jan. 2020. .

15

argues that the “seeming Terrible[s]” of colonialism, racial capitalism, and genocide are “the real soul of white culture”—not an aberration. 37 Du Bois further argues that Whiteness, according to those who purvey it, is also “ownership of the earth forever and ever” and “the one virtue… the one fundamental tenet of our practical morality.” 38 Like Cancelmo and Mueller, Du Bois draws a direct link between Whiteness and white supremacy, particularly as Whiteness is tightly linked to the justification of the horrors of colonialism in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. He also hints that there is a moral and spiritual aspect to Whiteness that links it to land ownership, a kind of “divine right” to appropriate anything it desires, and positions it as a moral virtue associated with “everything great, good, efficient, fair, and honorable.” 39 The way that Du Bois links Whiteness to a) conquest and domination, even a sort of manifest destiny, and b) a construction of moral and spiritual “goodness” speaks to the nature of white identity as white supremacy, particularly illuminating the function of Whiteness as self-justifying. Probably the most popular understanding of Whiteness in the United States today comes from Peggy McIntosh’s article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” which sought to intervene in Whiteness discourse to show that racism not only puts non-white people at a disadvantage, but actively advantages white people.40 McIntosh is right to point out that white people experience privileges as a result of their racial identity—a key function of white supremacy—but to understand Whiteness as a privilege (which, to be fair, McIntosh may not be exclusively suggesting) ultimately brings the danger of positioning Whiteness as having a positive dimension, when in reality it does not have one, since the privileges Whiteness grants

37

Du Bois, W.E.B. “The Souls of White Folk” in DARKWATER: Voices from Within the Veil. (Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 2007), 19. 38 Du Bois, 16-17. 39 Du Bois, 22. 40 Peggy McIntosh, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (ERIC, 1988).

16

white people are directly drawn from the appropriation of Native land and the exploitation/appropriation of Black and non-white labor. Nonetheless, the white privilege framework does help elucidate some of the functions and nature of white supremacy and how it benefits all white people whether or not they have anti-racist intentions. Cheryl Harris’s article “Whiteness as Property”—in which she argues that Whiteness, while originally conceived of as a form of racial identity, “evolved into a property interest for those who were able to bring themselves under its definition” 41—has exerted a great deal of influence over the study of Whiteness, and offers an important link between Whiteness, primitive accumulation42, and racial capitalism.43 Harris’s thesis, much like Du Bois’s idea of Whiteness as “ownership of the earth,” argues that Whiteness is itself property, in ways that have evolved over the course of history. Her argument hinges on the notion that property is “a right, not a thing, characterized as metaphysical, not physical.” 44 According to Harris, since Whiteness entails a set of entitlements arising from legal and social status—even as it simultaneously operates as a (self)identity and status—it becomes a form of property.45 Much like the notion of white privilege, Whiteness as property explains the benefits that white people enjoy by virtue of their Whiteness, but it also shows more clearly how those benefits are rooted in the theft of native land (primitive accumulation/colonialism) and entitlement to Black and other not-white bodies (racial capitalism). This is an important aspect of the nature of Whiteness. Other Theories of Whiteness

41

Delgado and Stefancic, eds. Critical White Studies. Pg. 46. For the purposes of this thesis primitive accumulation can be understood as the accumulation of capital (wealth, productive forces, labor power) via force (coercion), e.g. seizure of indigenous lands, enslavement of Africans, etc. 43 Harris, Cheryl. “WHITENESS AS PROPERTY.” (Harvard Law Review 106.8, 1993), 1707–1791. 44 Harris, 1725. 45 Harris, 1725. 42

17

While most claims about Whiteness are in one way or another rooted in the “foundational theories” described above, a number of diverse theories of Whiteness offer a deeper, highly nuanced conception of Whiteness in its many forms, natures, affects, and effects. Another conception of Whiteness comes from bell hooks, who argues that Whiteness, particularly in the lived experience and imagination of Black Americans, is violence and terror. hooks explains that while white people “do not have to ‘see’ black people,” and thus can live “as though black people were invisible,” Black people must see Whiteness in order to look out for their own safety.46 She points to a variety of Black authors/storytellers who have detailed the ways in which Whiteness creates personal and communal terror, particularly through the metaphor and experience of journey, in which whiteness generally allows safety for those who possess it but signifies terror for those who do not. While “one fantasy of whiteness is that the threatening Other is always a terrorist,” white people often fail to imagine that there might be a representation of Whiteness as such, when in fact Whiteness from the perspective of Black people is terror, terrorism, and violence.47 This conceptualization of Whiteness is closely tied with one of the several definitions offered by Rasmussen et al., namely that Whiteness “is the institutionalization of European colonialism.” 48 hooks’ argument about Whiteness exposes the historical processes behind Whiteness and white supremacy through lens of imagination—an important contribution to an understanding of Whiteness, since to fully understand it requires not just historical/legal/theoretical analysis but also the emotions/feelings/imagination associated with it. In fact, one of the contributions I hope to make in my analysis of Whiteness is to go

46

hooks, bell. “Representations of Whiteness in the Black Imagination” in Black Looks: Race and Representation. (South End Press, 1992), 168. 47 hooks, 174. 48 Rasmussen et al, 13.

18

beyond a rational or logical analysis to also examine the ways emotion and imagination play into the constitution and reproduction of Whiteness. Charles W. Mills’ The Racial Contract offers another means of understanding the nature of Whiteness and its relationship to white supremacy. Mills shows Whiteness to be the product of a “Racial Contract” not unlike the social contract often discussed in political philosophy, except that the “Racial Contract” only involves the consent of those who benefit from it. The Racial Contract, Mills argues, can more or less be traced to discrete historical events, in which a certain group of people deemed themselves “white” (creating Whiteness) in order to secure certain privileges and join in the subjugation of those left out of the contract. All “white” people are beneficiaries of the Racial Contract, even if some are not signatories to it. Joel Olson argues a similar line, characterizing what Mills would call the “Racial Contract” as a “cross-class alliance between the capitalist class and a section of the working class.” 49 Reading Mills and Olson for a definition of Whiteness, it seems that their arguments suggest that Whiteness itself is a crossclass alliance (via the establishment of a Racial Contract). This has important implications for the conceptualization of the production and reproduction of Whiteness, particularly in that it suggests the possibility that an undoing of the Racial Contract, or breaking of the cross-class alliance, might fundamentally change the nature of Whiteness, or perhaps eliminate Whiteness altogether. Ruth Frankenberg offers a view of Whiteness that embraces the complexity of Whiteness as part of her effort to “displace the ‘unmarked marker’ status of whiteness.” 50 As mentioned earlier, in Frankenberg’s examination Whiteness “emerges as a process, not a ‘thing,’ as plural

49

Olson, 16 Frankenberg, Ruth. Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), 1-2. 50

19

rather than singular in nature.”51 The idea that Whiteness is a “process, not a ‘thing’” suggests not only that there are active forces involved in perpetuating it, but also that the mechanisms of its re/production might be obstructed, disturbed, and/or destroyed. The idea that Whiteness is “plural rather than singular in nature” welcomes the complexity of Whiteness and the many forms it takes and roles that it plays. Rasmussen et al. elaborate on the “plurality” of Whiteness in arguing that “definitions of whiteness… will always be dynamic and context-specific.” 52 As Rasmussen et al. point out, national borders further confuse matters, as whiteness is constructed differently in different national contexts (I will elaborate on the international nature of Whiteness in the next section). The conceptions of Whiteness as a process and as plural are meaningful in emphasizing that many of the theories of Whiteness presented in this section can both contradict and complement each other. While many of the conceptualizations of Whiteness outlined above are instructive, for the purposes of this thesis the most useful takeaway from this study of Whiteness is that Whiteness is violence, is theft/appropriation, is racial domination/white supremacy, is a strategy for economic domination of not-white people—that is, Whiteness cannot be separated from the evils of the systems it has produced/reproduced and continues to reproduce. Based on the duality of these ideas—e.g. that Whiteness is both “the institutionalization of colonialism” (a product) and “violence/terror” (a creator)—I argue that it is best to conceive of Whiteness as the identity/social position that is simultaneously a product and creator of white supremacy. This conclusion is important in that it rejects the idea that Whiteness, and correspondingly the State and society built around it, is a redeemable quality that has simply diverted from its path of

51 52

Frankenberg, 1. Rasmussen et al, 7.

20

neutral non-harm or positive identity to commit certain grand harms. This idea suggests that there is a possibility of “good Whiteness” or “good white people,” whereas I argue the understanding put forth in this section of Whiteness as inherently harmful suggests that Whiteness has no redeemable value and a white person can be “good” not by “doing white” better, but rather by ceasing to be white. In the next section, I will discuss the reproduction of Whiteness, hopefully shedding further light on its nature. The Reproduction of Whiteness The reproduction of Whiteness is an enormously complicated and convoluted system— many different actions, behaviors, structures, institutions, and processes contribute to its reproduction. To begin, it will be helpful to very briefly discuss the idea of social reproduction and why it is important to discuss in this chapter and thesis. Since what we understand to be (even “objective”) “reality” is socially constructed, it is crucial in examining a particular social construct (e.g. Whiteness) to identify not just how it was created and has been updated over time (as discussed in the previous chapter), but also how it continues to be reproduced. Social reproduction theory offers a means of analyzing this. Erik Olin Wright argues that a theory of social reproduction “provides an account of the obstacles to emancipatory transformation” and also identifies reasons for hope, as a theory of the “gaps and contradictions” of social reproduction “shows how, in spite of these obstacles, there are real possibilities of transformation.”53 Social Reproduction Theory

53

Erik Olin Wright, Envisioning Real Utopias (London ; New York: Verso, 2010), 273.

21

Although Wright points out that the term “social reproduction” can be used in a number of ways with somewhat different meanings, here I use the definition of social reproduction that he offers as “the processes that reproduce the underlying structure of social relations and institutions of a society.”54 According to Wright, there are two types of social reproduction: active reproduction and passive reproduction. Active social reproduction “is the result of specific institutions and structures which at least in part are designed to serve the purpose of social reproduction,” e.g. police, courts, state administration, education, the media, churches, etc. 55 Passive social reproduction, which need also be considered, involves “those aspects of social reproduction that are anchored in the mundane routines and activities of daily life.” 56 The basic proposition of most theories of social reproduction is that “social structures and institutions that systematically impose harms on people require vigorous mechanisms of active social reproduction in order to be sustained over time”—i.e. Oppression and Exploitation (or in our case Whiteness) are “not simply sustained through some process of social inertia rooted only in the mechanisms of passive reproduction; they require active mechanisms of social reproduction in order to be sustained.”57 For this reason, social reproduction theory seeks to identify what those mechanisms are. Wright states that there are three underlying claims to the “basic proposition” of social reproduction theory. The first claim is that the harms associated with the system/structure being reproduced (in our case Whiteness) are real (as described in the previous chapter), whether or not the people harmed by them understand their source. Further, these harms “would in general be

54

Wright, 274. Wright, 275. 56 Wright, 274. 57 Wright, 276. 55

22

recognized as socially generated harms if people had access to all the relevant information.” 58 The second claim is around humans’ basic capacities and motivations, specifically that all people have “certain basic capacities” of intelligence, imagination, problem-solving abilities and motivations “for material well-being and security, social connection, autonomy, etc.” that would lead them to try to do something about harms they experience in their lives. 59 This leads to the related claim that if people are living lives of suffering, “something must be interfering with a response that would improve their situation.” 60 Finally, the third claim is that there must exist obstacles to social change, since without mechanisms blocking social change, people will tend to challenge social structures/institutions that generate harms, meaning those institutions are likely to change. Therefore, any absence of challenges to oppressive structures requires an explanation, which a theory of social reproduction attempts to provide. These claims illustrate the position of social reproduction theory as meant to help with “understanding the specific mechanisms that generate obstacles to such processes of oppression-reducing social transformation.” 61 Having illustrated the basic mission and intentions of a theory of social reproduction, it is helpful to move now to some of the main insights it offers on the mechanisms of social reproduction. Following Wright, social reproduction is the result of the complex forms of interaction between 4 clusters of mechanisms: coercion, “mechanisms which raise the cost of collective challenge,”62 institutional rules, which create “gradients of collective action opportunities”,63 ideology and culture, “mechanisms which shape the subjectivities of actors,” 64

58

Wright, 278 Wright, 278. 60 Wright, 278. 61 Wright, 278. 62 Wright, 279. 63 Wright, 285 64 Wright, 286 59

23

and material interests, “mechanisms which tie the welfare of individuals to the effective functioning”65 of oppressive structures. These clusters of “mechanisms” are essentially a typology of the tools available to the elite and ruling classes for maintaining oppressive social structures. As Wright notes, the two poles between which most systems of social reproduction (with their various mechanisms) are configured are hegemonic and despotic reproduction. Despotic reproduction is a system of social reproduction that relies heavily on coercion, e.g. the use of police/military force or imprisonment, such that repression and fear are the main obstacles to collective challenges for positive social change. Hegemonic reproduction is a system of social reproduction that deemphasizes coercion, relying more on the “active consent”—peoples’ willingness to participate in and cooperate with the reproduction of oppressive social structures that does not come chiefly from fear, but from a belief that “doing so is both in their interests and is the right thing to do”66—of subordinated groups. These descriptions of the different types of mechanisms and configurations of mechanisms that make up systems of social reproduction will be useful in examining the reproduction of Whiteness. Social reproduction, in particular the social reproduction of Whiteness, is important to discuss for this thesis because, as Wright suggests, it helps both to understand the obstacles in the way of positive social transformation (i.e. the abolition of Whiteness and white supremacy) and to identify (by examining any gaps or contradictions in the reproduction of Whiteness) possibilities for transformation. To continue this mission, the next section will examine different aspects and mechanisms of the social reproduction of Whiteness in our contemporary “colorblind democracy.”

65 66

Wright,288 Wright, 289.

24

The Reproduction of Whiteness: If White Supremacy is Bad, Why Does it Persist? Following Olin Wright, a theory of the reproduction of Whiteness 67 should identify the “vigorous mechanisms of active social reproduction” required “in order [for Whiteness] to be sustained over time.” Building from the outline of social reproduction theory offered in the previous section, in this section I will identify mechanisms and characterize them in relationship to the “clusters” described above (coercion, institutional rules, ideology/culture, and material interests), drawing on previous scholarship to show some of the most important active processes of reproduction. I will also offer some insights into the passive reproduction of Whiteness and its importance. Following this discussion, I will relate the characterizations I offer of the mechanisms used for the social reproduction of Whiteness in the U.S. to the two poles identified in the previous section from Olin Wright, hegemonic and despotic reproduction, in an effort to characterize the general nature of Whiteness’ social reproduction in the U.S. context. I conclude that the reproduction of Whiteness, like capitalism and other structures of oppression, is generally more hegemonic than despotic in the U.S, although this hegemonic nature is reinforced by the possibility and threat of coercion for all and the devastating reality of largely despotic reproduction for not-white groups in particular. Those who are experience the benefits of whiteness generally participate in hegemonic reproduction, while those who are not (especially Black and Native groups) often must have their not-Whiteness reinforced since they have less material interest.

67

In this section, the distinction between the concept of Whiteness and white supremacy is especially difficult to talk about, since the reproduction of Whiteness and white supremacy are so closely tied (in fact, one of the central arguments of this thesis is that anything that reproduces either Whiteness or white supremacy is without exception reproducing the other!). I will speak in this section in terms of the reproduction of Whiteness, but hopefully it will be clear (I will try to clarify as needed) that this also means the reproduction of white supremacy.

25

Coercion, the cluster of mechanisms intended to “raise the cost of collective challenge,” is undoubtedly a significant force in the reproduction of Whiteness in the U.S. Coercive mechanisms such as policing68 and prisons, for example, reproduce Whiteness by reinforcing certain peoples’ identities outside of Whiteness through violence/incarceration or the threat of violence/incarceration. As Ben Brucato argues, the modern form of policing in the U.S. has always operated with a mandate to reinforce the subordination of Black people and continues to do so in the post-civil rights era, even as departments may not have an official directive on the matter.69 As Brucato writes, “Police, by virtue of this mandate, is the strong blue thread that weaves together the white race and the state, forming a barrier to full political inclusion of nonwhites.”70 In terms of social reproduction, the police raise the cost of challenging the existence of Whiteness and the accompanying system of white supremacy, both by enforcing rules around what collective challenges to white supremacy might look like and by enforcing the subordinate status of non-white people through violence, terror and surveillance. Prisons similarly reproduce Whiteness by removing both active revolutionaries and rebellious and/or socially marginalized non-whites from their communities, as well as by imposing punishments, enforced by the police, for any disruption of the privileges and system of Whiteness. Although prisons (and the prisonindustrial complex) and police have an ideological effect on white people, they function more as a system of coercion against Black, Native, and non-white resistance, impeding those groups’ freedom such that Whiteness is guaranteed its freedoms (i.e. is reproduced).

68

I chose to use policing instead of “police brutality” here. For more on this, see Dylan Rodriguez’s video for Critical Resistance, “It’s not Police Brutality.” 69 Ben Brucato, "Fabricating the color line in a white democracy: From slave catchers to petty sovereigns." (Theoria 61.141 (2014)), 30-54. 70 Brucato. Pg. 48.

26

The role of the cluster of mechanisms that fall under “institutional rules” is limited in its specificity to the reproduction of Whiteness. Institutional rules, in general, reproduce Whiteness and other oppressive social systems/structures through a process of “negative selection,” in which state institutions are organized “in such a way as to filter out (‘negatively select’) those practices and policies which would have especially disruptive effects” on the reproduction of said systems/structures.71 In the case of Whiteness, it is true that state institutions are organized such that participation in electoral processes is strongly encouraged as means of combatting white supremacy, while other means such as direct action 72 or more active confrontations with the power structures behind Whiteness are discouraged, but it is unclear to what extent these mechanisms apply differently to white supremacy than to general organizing against the state. It is encouraging to note that the lack of institutional rules in place to discourage or “negatively select” some acts towards eliminating Whiteness, e.g. interpersonal wealth redistribution or changing of cultural norms or ways of being, is a potential gap in the social reproduction of Whiteness, which could be explored. There is limited literature on this particular aspect of the reproduction of Whiteness. Ideology/Culture is perhaps the most important and complex mechanism of the reproduction of Whiteness. Using Olin Wright’s definitions, I will use “ideology” to refer to “the conscious aspects of subjectivity: beliefs, ideas, values, doctrines, theories, and so on,” and “culture” to refer to “the nonconscious aspects of subjectivity: dispositions, habits, tastes, skills.”73 Mass media and education, both controlled by the ruling classes, tremendously impact public discourse and personal ideologies around race and Whiteness. For example, public

71

Olin Wright, 282. Direct action refers to acts in which non-state political actors attempt to accomplish their goals without appealing to the state/others to accomplish said goals for them—strikes, sit-ins, and sabotage are all examples. 73 Olin Wright, 283. 72

27

education teaches that Whiteness has always existed and/or that it is a natural attribute of some people, rather than a socially constructed identity whose historical roots can be traced. This reduces the likelihood that the average person will question the continued importance and essentialness of White identity. Further, narratives spread in education and mass media that the colonizer class of the U.S. has generally had good intentions, and that certain historical wrongs (e.g. slavery, genocide of Native Americans, Jim Crow) were simply aberrations from a longer path of goodness, reproduces the belief that Whiteness is “just another color in the rainbow,” essentially the same as any other “race,” rather than a category of/for dominance. Ahistorical beliefs, theories, and ideas about Whiteness have been thoroughly disproven, yet they are perpetuated by those in power on battlegrounds such as school textbook choices and media representations. Even as neither the media nor the education system (nor most institutions) exists solely for the purpose of reproducing Whiteness (or other systems of domination), they play an active role in creating ideologies that reproduce Whiteness. Culture, which is deeply tied to ideology, also plays a crucial role in reproducing Whiteness. Conclusion This chapter is without a doubt a limited attempt to address the nature of Whiteness and its relationship with white supremacy. However, the arguments and information presented in this chapter should clearly demonstrate the inherent link between Whiteness as a socially and politically constructed identity and white supremacy as a system of dominance and oppression. Whiteness was invented for explicitly white supremacist goals and has historically always served as a means of furthering white supremacist projects, including racial capitalism and settlercolonialism. If this is the case, then, the personal and political actions of the CWP ought to be aimed not around redeeming Whiteness (neither their own, others’, nor the identity more 28

generally) but around making it obsolete as a means/end of ending white supremacy. The next chapter will discuss what actions the CWP can take towards these goals.

29

Chapter 2: Pursuing a Liberated non-Whiteness in a Pale Body The practice of love offers no place of safety. We risk loss, hurt, pain. We risk being acted on by forces outside our control. bell hooks74 In any case, we can assert that the oppressed is more totally engaged in the struggle than those who, though at one with him in rejecting his servitude, do not experience it; but also that, on the other hand, every man is affected by this struggle in so essential a way that he can not fulfill himself morally without taking part in it. Simone de Beauvoir75 As should be clear from the previous chapter, Whiteness is not something to be valued, redeemed, reformed, or otherwise held on to. Rather, it is something to be abolished, destroyed, transformed. Nonetheless, here we (white people) are in these pale-skinned bodies, which in the modern United States are racialized as white. As such it is necessary to imagine, theorize, and ultimately bring into practice a different way (or different ways) of being in a pale-skinned body, as someone who is racialized as white. 76 This will require us to engage in work that attacks Whiteness itself at all levels, micro and macro. As I have stated before, abolishing Whiteness is not a goal to be pursued in a vacuum—I don’t want to make it out to be the primary goal, particularly in recognition of the ease with which advocating the end of Whiteness might slip into a kind of liberal “post-racialism” that denies race and racism rather than accounting for it. Abolishing Whiteness is a goal that comes in tandem with the abolition of white supremacy, racial capitalism, and settler-colonialism, since Whiteness is crucial to the reproduction of each

74

bell hooks, All about Love: New Visions, 1st ed (New York: William Morrow, 2000). de Beauvoir, Simone. “The Ethics of Ambiguity.” Marxists.org. Accessed April 21, 2020. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/ambiguity/ch03.htm. 76 For a further account of what “racialization” is and how it works, see: Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States (Routledge, 2014). 75

30

of those systems, much as those systems in turn reproduce Whiteness. 77 That being said, what is the concerned white person to do? This chapter will seek to address that question, critiquing the wildly popular and widely discussed idea/theory/practice of white allyship and offering alternative visions for the pursuit of a liberated (non-)Whiteness in a pale body. 78 Up to this point, I have argued that addressing the problem of the concerned white person requires addressing the problem of Whiteness and the systems of white supremacy, racial capitalism, and settler-colonialism it is tied up in. I have argued that addressing these problems/systems requires an abolitionist approach—we need to abolish racism, not reform it. It is clear from a historical standpoint that the best means of fighting unjust power structures is through social movements. The social movements best positioned to abolish white supremacy are naturally those emerging from and led by Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color. However, the solidarity against white supremacy emerging from BIPOC communities is diverse and rarely unified. This situation poses two main problems for the concerned white person hoping to begin organizing against white supremacy: 1) how can the CWP participate authentically in a struggle that is in many ways by and for BIPOC; and 2) given the mandate to be in political solidarity with BIPOC, and even to follow their leadership, how can the CWP navigate the diversity of ideology, organizations, and tactics that abound among BIPOC? These problems can be paralyzing for many concerned white people (the author included). In the next two sections, I will discuss how white allyship fails to adequately address these problems and

77

I also think that abolishing Whiteness must come in tandem with accounting for patriarchy, ableism, trans/homophobia, and other systems of oppression, as each of these is tied into Whiteness, but to draw these links more clearly is beyond the scope of this thesis. 78 Liberated: free, etc. (non-)Whiteness because we must recognize our Whiteness in our action today, while oriented towards ceasing to be white, thus (non-).

31

propose an alternative framework being outlined by many on the frontlines of the struggle for liberation. White Allyship White allyship is a hot topic in 2020. Countless articles have been published online, as well as in academic circles, arguing about what it means and what it takes to be a “white ally” to BIPOC. At the same time, and at an increasing rate recently, many authors have published critiques of white allies and white allyship. In this section, I will first briefly discuss the “pop” literature on white allyship (the plethora of blog posts, op-eds, and online writing on the subject that often circulates social media). I will then review the most widely cited scholarly text proposing a theory of white allyship, Paul Kivel’s Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice. As my goal is not simply to discredit what I think may often be genuine efforts to push the struggle against racism forward, I will try to draw out the strengths of this literature before explaining my criticisms. I will argue, however, following the ideas of a number of more informal published texts, that the framework of white allyship is inherently problematic in its approach to addressing white supremacy. Although white allyship provides useful advice for concerned white people hoping to take steps towards having a less racist impact in their lives, it fails to provide a path towards the type of revolutionary change necessary to abolish white supremacy. As I will argue later on, this is because in order to abolish white supremacy white people need to both stop being white and stop acting as allies. ‘Pop’ Allyship Literature The “pop” literature on white allyship often focuses on addressing what we might call “interpersonal” racism, i.e. everyday acts of discrimination such as microaggressions or exclusionary hiring practices, rather than structural racism (i.e. white supremacy, racial 32

capitalism, settler-colonialism, and imperialism).79 This literature often encourages reading and learning from writers of color (either unspecified or perhaps with a list of notable books), listening to people of color and learning from their experiences, understanding one’s privilege, and/or amplifying the voices of or otherwise empowering people of color. Some authors and pieces encourage involvement in social movements, often in vague terms such as “POC-led movements.” Many authors and articles criticize “white allies” en masse, pointing out the many ways that white people declaring or otherwise considering themselves “allies” fail in their attempts to follow through on anti-racist commitments. In general, the most progressive articles promoting a doctrine of white allyship point towards a practice of allyship similar to that outlined in Kivel’s book. Being Allies: “Uprooting Racism” through white allyship? 80 Paul Kivel’s account of “how white people can work for racial justice” brings together the strongest parts of the white allyship doctrine. I recognize in my critique of his work that many of the typical problems/criticisms of white allyship are a result of “allies” who do not really follow Kivel’s suggestions. According to Kivel, the practice of being an ally “is an

79

I am basing this analysis off of the experience of reading many articles and responses to articles, especially on social media. I imagine most readers have experienced this literature in one way or another. For examples of this literature, see (in no particular order, also consider a web search): Holloway, Kali. “11 Things White People Can Do to Be Real Anti-Racist Allies.” Alternet.org, August 8, 2016. https://www.alternet.org/2015/04/11-things-whitepeople-can-do-be-real-anti-racist-allies/. “How To Be A Better Ally: An Open Letter To White Folks.” BuzzFeed News. BuzzFeed News, December 30, 2015. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/anotherround/how-to-be-abetter-ally-an-open-letter-to-white-folks. LeslieMac. “When ‘Allies’ Fuck up - It's Time to #DoBetter.” Medium. Medium, July 6, 2018. https://medium.com/@LeslieMac/when-allies-fuck-up-its-time-to-dobetter-75ac071800a0. Szczur, Karolina. “Fundamentals of Effective Allyship.” Medium. Medium, February 13, 2018. https://medium.com/@fox/fundamentals-of-effective-allyship-468bd0afe89b. Woods, Janee. “12 Ways to Be a White Ally to Black People.” The Root. Accessed April 27, 2020. https://www.theroot.com/12-ways-to-be-a-whiteally-to-black-people-1790876784. 80 Assertions of what white allyship is or what white allies do in this section are based off of Kivel’s ideas in Uprooting Racism, unless otherwise specified. I will try not to burden the text with too many footnotes citing the same source. I use the term “people of color” in this section, which I avoid elsewhere in the text, because Kivel uses the term so heavily.

33

ongoing strategic process in which we look at our personal and social resources, evaluate the environment we are in, and in collaboration with people of color and other white allies, pursue justice”81. His conception of allyship as a strategic practice in coordination with others provides a strong framework for the concerned white person to move from concerned about racism to active in the fight against racism. As Kivel emphasizes throughout his book, for him being an ally is “not an identity, it is a practice,” and in fact it is a commitment to a time-consuming and enduring struggle. 82 In order to join in this practice not as a white savior (or other such paternalistic framings), Kivel’s theory emphasizes the importance of mutual interest, the idea that a white ally comes at ally work not out of a place of sympathy and charity towards Black and other non-white people, but out of the importance of the work to their own well-being. Put another way, white allies should understand that their “own liberation as white people, [their] own humanity, is inextricably linked to racial justice…. It means [their] own freedom is bound up in the freedom of people of color.” 83 Tied to mutual interest and the idea of allyship as a practice is the idea that an ally must be committed to the work they are doing (anti-racism) regardless of their treatment by or the attitudes of nonwhite people towards them or others and without any expectation of immediate gratification or validation. Kivel’s formulation of allyship as a practice rooted in mutual interest and inalienable commitment addresses the problem of white saviorism and offers a means of motivation and against burnout for concerned white people. Rooted in these ideas, Kivel lays out 12 basic tactics for white allies. These are “assume racism is everywhere, everyday”; “notice who is the center of attention and who is the center of

81

Kivel, 134. Kivel, 133. 83 Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) in Kivel, 131. 82

34

power”; “notice how racism is denied, minimized, and justified”; “assume our whiteness is also a factor”; “understand and learn from the history of whiteness and racism”; “understand the connections between racism, economic issues, sexism, and other forms of injustice”; “take a stand against injustice”; “be strategic”; “don’t confuse a particular struggle with larger issues”; “don’t call names or be personally abusive”; “support the leadership of people of color and POCled organizations”; “learn something about the history of white people who have worked for racial justice”; “don’t do it alone”; and “talk with your children and other young people about racism.”84 Each of these tactics offers important advice to the concerned white person about how to go about the practice of fighting racism—in fact, Kivel’s points address quite a few of the common complaints about white allies/allyship. Kivel pushes white allies to look for and stand up against everyday acts of racism (including microagressions 85), but also to understand smaller issues in larger contexts and fight racism as a system of oppression, one which is connected to “economic issues, sexism, and other forms of injustice.” He encourages allies to be self-critical, to examine their own Whiteness and white privilege. He encourages white people to follow the lead of people of color and POC-led organizations, but also to “educate and organize other white people so they participate in multiracial alliances for justice.” Another important point and strength of Kivel’s suggestions for white allies is his insistence that white people do in fact have many resources they can contribute to the struggle for racial justice, despite the worries some might have about not being able to contribute. Among these resources, Kivel lists money; time; skills (e.g. childcare, fundraising, carpentry); connections; space; organizational leverage in workplaces, religious organizations, and schools;

84 85

Kivel, 137-8. Microagressions are

35

information about racism and social justice to share; “access to and credibility with white people”; “access to young people”; a body to put on the line at rallies and protests; the ability to witness, record, interrupt, and report incidents of racism; and the ability to amplify the voices and requests of POC-led struggles.86 This point is crucial in that it shows that even as white people may not be positioned to lead the struggle against white supremacy, they have a great number of areas where they can potentially contribute—perhaps most white people cannot contribute in all of these areas, but all of them can contribute in at least a few. This emphasizes that white people are not powerless against racism but in fact have many options for how to engage in the practice of allyship. As touched on in the last few paragraphs, for Kivel a crucial, but not all-encompassing part of being a white ally is talking to, educating, mobilizing, and organizing other white people, including one’s own (white) family. He accurately writes that from the civil rights movement to present Black liberation struggles, “the primary request to whites has consistently been to break white silence, show up in solidarity, and educate and organize other white people so they participate in multiracial alliances for justice.”87 He offers Showing Up for Racial Justice, an organization he helped found with the mission to “organize White people for racial justice… [while] maintaining strong accountability relationships with organizers and communities of color,”88 as an example of and model for this work. Kivel clarifies, however, that this is not a call “convert the unconvertible,” but rather to move well-intentioned white people who believe in racial justice towards better analyses and engagement with the fight against racism. 89 He writes that social change for exploited groups comes not from “converting more and more members of

86

Kivel, 144. Kivel, 145. 88 Kivel, 145. 89 Kivel, 160. This is a 87

36

the group in power to their side,” but from “direct action, mass mobilization, electoral campaigns, and other strategies.”90 For this reason he does not believe white allies should spend all of their time attempting to convert other white people to the side against racism. Kivel’s work, however, as is the case with the best of white allyship literature, offers numerous actionable ways for the concerned white person to move towards being less of an active problem. Although it has some redeeming qualities, white allyship is not an effective means of solving the problem of the CWP if we are interested in ending white supremacy. White allyship is never ideologically driven and takes no clear ideological stand other than being against racism. Any real opposition to white supremacy must involve opposition to racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and imperialism. White allyship offers an ambiguous politics of “fighting racial injustice” that generally seems like a movement for inclusion. Abolishing white supremacy is a call for revolution. White allyship answers the problem of the CWP by offering a way of “doing whiteness well” rather than a way to destroy Whiteness, which is the necessary endgame of struggle against white supremacy. 91 The two major weaknesses of the white allyship approach, which apply not only to what I might call “weaker” notions of WA (e.g. those in blogs that are clearly liberal and disengaged from struggle) but also to “stronger” notions (e.g. Paul Kivel’s theory of allyship in Uprooting Racism), are that it does not support/acknowledge independence, self-determination, autonomy, and agency as important parts of being in solidarity as a CWP, nor interdependence; and that, relatedly, it strongly tends towards a liberal politics of inclusion rather than a revolutionary/abolitionist politics of liberation. A white ally seeks to help BIPOC gain access to

90 91

Kivel, 158. Rigby, Kevin, and Hari Ziyad. “White People Have No Place In Black Liberation.” RaceBaitr, March 31, 2016.

37

the benefits more widely available to white people in our system. A white person acting in revolutionary solidarity with BIPOC seeks to abolish the patriarchal, racial capitalist system we live under, and to abolish Whiteness as it currently exists, in order that we might emerge into a liberated future together. Ideas for A Liberatory Framework of Solidarity92 Abolishing Whiteness and white supremacy is a revolutionary goal which history tells us will not be accomplished without struggle and sacrifice. It is not in the interest of the United States government nor of the ruling class generally to abolish white supremacy, particularly its manifestations in racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and imperialism, all of which are essential to the continuance of the U.S. and its power structure. This means that the type of dissent that will move us towards abolition is and will continue to be criminalized and repressed. The recognition of the potentially criminal nature of organizing against white supremacy, among other factors, has led many organizers to prefer the term “accomplice” over ally when referring to white people joining in solidarity against white supremacy. Others have argued that white people ought to act as and think of themselves as “race traitors,” a term that emphasizes the abandoning of the intra-racial solidarity that reproduces Whiteness and instead fighting against the existence of the white race. I don’t have a strong preference for one of these terms or any other as the “best” way for CWP to identify. I do think that it is important to think and speak of our actions as CWPs in terms of being accomplices, race traitors, or something similar, rather

92

I would like to extend credit for many of the ideas in this section to the following articles, the full citation for each appearing in the Bibliography: Kevin Rigby, Jr. and Hari Ziyad, “White People Have No Place in Black Liberation;” Common Cause Ottawa, “With Allies like These: Reflections on Privilege Reductionism;” Smith, Shannon. “Building a ‘Canadian’ Decolonization Movement: Fighting the Occupation at ‘Home;’” Barbara Appelbaum, “Flipping the Script… and Still a Problem;” and (from Cindy Milstein, ed. Taking Sides: Revolutionary Solidarity and the Poverty of Liberalism) M, “A Critique of Ally Politics;” Indigenous Action Media, “Accomplices Not Allies: Abolishing the Ally Industrial Complex.”

38

than using “ally,” in order to emphasize the difference between liberal and abolitionist politics. That being said, the following are principles and suggestions for the pursuit of a liberated (non)Whiteness in a pale body—hopefully these words can be helpful for the work of re-articulating ourselves outside and against the confines of Whiteness. Mutual Interest As suggested by Kivel, it is important for white people to come to struggle against racism out of mutual interest rather than a sense of charity. I agree with him that white people ought to have a mutual interest in living in a liberated world. However, there are also real material drawbacks that have to be recognized in a mutual interest framework. To a certain extent, our goal as CWPs is to actually lose structural power, very possibly leading to a loss of certain material comforts we experience today. It is also true, however, that we live in an abundant world in which there is enough for everybody, and that to live in a world where everyone experiences abundance, but not extravagance, in healthy relation to each other and the earth would be preferable for all of us, even if some people may not be ready to recognize it. Further, getting rid of white supremacy, racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and imperialism is incredibly exciting—this is a chance to build new ways of living in healthy relationships with ourselves, others, and the earth that are far outside of our reach in the present moment. This work also entails the abolition of other power structures, despite this not being discussed in this thesis (due to my attempt to address Whiteness and race with great specificity, as well as lack of time). Opposition to the State and Racial Capitalism CWPs should gain familiarity with the history and functions of the state and racial capitalism, white supremacy, etc. and accept that the state will not end white supremacy and racial capitalism through its own mechanisms, and thus that commitment to solidarity against 39

these systems involves real risk—protestors in Ferguson and Baltimore and revolutionaries throughout history have been viscerally confronted with this reality. We must accept that there is real material and physical risk to this struggle, and we must be willing to take that on, understanding that no matter how much we put our bodies on the line they will never be as endangered as BIPOC bodies. Healing our Trauma This may sound corny or ancillary, but in order to be effective resources for the struggle for racial justice, CWP must heal our (ancestral) and personal trauma, in a race-informed manner. We must learn how to love ourselves even as we hate Whiteness so that we can love others and contribute to movements in healthy ways. Organize our own, follow BIPOC leads Yes, but with independence. Although oppression and liberation are best understood from perspectives that actually experience oppression, experiencing oppression does not lead all those who experience it to the same conclusions and political commitments. 93 The more we (CWP) can engage in relationships of interdependence with BIPOC, the more we can be in real solidarity. The mandate to organize other white people, as Kivel points out, has been a consistent request of BIPOC from all over the political spectrum. Being Independent Political Actors This point might be controversial, but I think it’s important to emphasize. When I suggest that CWPs need to be independent political actors, I want to be clear that this should be in a dynamic relationship with the principle of following the lead of BIPOC. However, I am

93

Sally J. Scholz, Political Solidarity (University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), 160-64.

40

concerned that often suggestions to CWPs diminish their agency, encouraging us to blindly follow “people of color” or “POC-led organizations,” without expanding on the fact that these terms encompass enormous swaths of people and organizations, many of whom disagree with each other, and may even be in conflict with each other. Being an independent political actor as a CWP means developing one’s own politics, alongside theory, practice, and legacies of BIPOC liberation struggles. We should learn from and follow the lead of BIPOC liberation struggles, in general, but we should also have and know our principles. Having principles that we believe in and are ready to act upon then enables us (CWPs) to identify which groups we might want to work in closest solidarity with and who we might want to be accountable to. A recent reflection on this dynamic: Where ally politics suggest that in shifting your role from actor to ally you can diminish your culpability, a liberatory or anarchist approach presumes that each person retains their own agency, insisting that the only way you can be accountable is by acting from your own desires while learning to understand and respond to the desires of other groups. Unraveling our socialized individualization until we can feel how our survival/liberation is infinitely linked to the survival/liberation of others fosters interdependence, as opposed to independence, and enables us to take responsibility for our choices… 94 Similarly, valuing self-determination for BIPOC ought to be accompanied by a respect for selfdetermination for white people (in part, the self-determination to cease to be white!), as elaborated in the following in the context of the “Canadian” decolonization movement: A decolonisation movement cannot be comprised solely of solidarity and support for Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty and self-determination. If we are in support of selfdetermination, we too need to be self-determining. It is time to cut the state out of this relationship, and to replace it with a new relationship, one which is mutually negotiated, and premised on a core respect for autonomy and freedom. 95

94

M. “A critique of ally politics,” in Taking Sides: Revolutionary Solidarity and the Poverty of Liberalism, Cindy Milstein, ed. (AK Press, 2015). 95 Smith, Shannon. “Building a ‘Canadian’ Decolonization Movement: Fighting the Occupation at ‘Home.’” Colours of Resistance Archive.

41

42

Conclusion In this thesis I hope I have made a convincing case that the concerned white person— perhaps you, the reader—ought to adopt an abolitionist politics that seeks to abolish Whiteness and the intertwined systems of white supremacy, racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and imperialism. Rather than reiterate what has already been said, I want to end with the words of others who have grappled with this problem: There is no such thing as racial innocence; there is only racial responsibility or irresponsibility Audrey Thompson96 Life is tragic simply because the earth turns and the sun inexorably rises and sets, and one day, for each of us, the sun will go down for the last, last time. Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we will sacrifice all the beauty of our lives, will imprison ourselves in totems, taboos, crosses, blood sacrifices, steeples, mosques, races, armies, flags, nations, in order to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have. It seems to me that we ought to rejoice in the fact of death--ought to decide, indeed, to earn one’s death by confronting with passion the conundrum of life. One is responsible for life: it is the small beacon in that terrifying darkness from which we come and to which we shall return. One must negotiate this passage as nobly as possible, for the sake of those who are coming after us. James Baldwin97 Militancy means combativeness and a willingness to fight, but fighting might look like a lot of different things. It might mean the struggle against internalized shame and oppression; fierce support for a friend or loved one; the courage to sit with trauma; a quiet act of sabotage; the persistence to recover subjugated traditions; drawing lines in the sand; or simply the willingness to risk. We are intentionally bringing joy and militancy together, with the aim of thinking through the connections between fierceness and love, resistance and care, combativeness and nurturance. Nick Montgomery and carla bergman98

96

Audrey Thompson, “Not the Color Purple: Black Feminist Lessons for Educational Caring,” Harvard Educational Review 68, no. 4 (December 1998): 522–55, https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.68.4.nm436v83214n5016. 97 Baldwin, James. The Fire Next Time. 1st Vintage International ed. New York: Vintage International, 1993. 98 carla bergman and Nick Montgomery, Joyful Militancy (Chico, CA: AK Press, 2017).

43

Bibliography Alcoff, Linda Martín. The Future of Whiteness. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2015. Allen, Theodore W. The Invention of the White Race. 2nd ed. New York: Verso, 2012. Applebaum, Barbara. “Flipping the Script... and Still a Problem.” In White Self-Criticality beyond Antiracism: How Does It Feel to Be a White Problem, edited by George Yancy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015. Bailey, Alison, and Jacquelyn Zita. “The Reproduction of Whiteness: Race and the Regulation of the Gendered Body.” Hypatia 22, no. 2 (2007): vii–xv. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15272001.2007.tb00978.x. Bell, Marcus. “Reflections of Whiteness: The Origins, Progression, and Maintenance of White.” In Other Words 13 (2006): 15. Bhandaru, Deepa. “Is White Normativity Racist? Michel Foucault and Post-Civil Rights Racism.” Polity 45, no. 2 (April 2013): 223–44. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2013.6. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism without Racists. 5th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018. Brander Rasmussen, Birgit, ed. The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press, 2001. Brucato, Ben. “Fabricating the Color Line in a White Democracy: From Slave Catchers to Petty Sovereigns.” Theoria 61, no. 141 (January 1, 2014). https://doi.org/10.3167/th.2014.6114103. Common Cause Ottawa. “With Allies Like These: Reflections on Privilege Reductionism,” n.d. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/common-cause-ottawa-with-allies-like-thesereflections-on-privilege-reductionism. Daniels, Jessie. White Lies: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality in White Supremacist Discourse. New York: Routledge, 1997. Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Critical White Studies: Looking behind the Mirror. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1997. DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2018. Du Bois, W. E. B, and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham. “The Souls of White Folk.” In Darkwater: Voices from within the Veil, 2014. Frankenberg, Ruth, ed. Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997. ———. “Questions of Culture and Belonging.” White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1993, 191–235. Garner, Steve. Whiteness: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2007. Gordon, Uri. “Prefigurative Politics between Ethical Practice and Absent Promise.” Political Studies 66, no. 2 (May 2018): 521–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717722363. 44

Guess, Teresa J. “The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence.” Critical Sociology 32, no. 4 (July 2006): 649–73. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916306779155199. Harris, Cheryl I. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (June 1993): 1707. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341787. hooks, bell. “Representations of Whiteness in the Black Imagination.” In Black Looks: Race and Representation, 166–78. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1992. Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge, 1995. Kendi, Ibram X. Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. New York, NY: Bold Type Books, 2017. Kivel, Paul. Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice. 4th ed. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2017. Lewis, Adam Gary. “Imagining Autonomy on Stolen Land: Settler Colonialism, Anarchism and the Possibilities of Decolonization?” Settler Colonial Studies 7, no. 4 (October 2, 2017): 474–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2016.1241211. Lipsitz, George. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness. Rev. and exp. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 2006. McIntosh, Peggy. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. ERIC, 1988. Mills, Charles W. The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1997. Milstein, Cindy. Taking Sides: Revolutionary Solidarity and the Poverty of Liberalism. AK Press, 2015. Olson, Joel. The Abolition of White Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004. Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States. Routledge, 2014. Owen, David S. “Towards a Critical Theory of Whiteness.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 33, no. 2 (March 2007): 203–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453707074139. Rigby, Kevin, and Hari Ziyad. “White People Have No Place In Black Liberation.” RaceBaitr, March 31, 2016. https://racebaitr.com/2016/03/31/white-people-no-place-blackliberation/. Robinson, Cedric J. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill, N.C: University of North Carolina Press, 2000. Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. New. New York: Verso, 2007. Scholz, Sally J. Political Solidarity. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008. Smith, Andrea. “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing.” In Color of Violence, edited by INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, 66–73. Duke University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822373445-007. 45

Smith, Shannon. “Building a ‘Canadian’ Decolonization Movement: Fighting the Occupation at ‘Home.’” Colours of Resistance Archive. Accessed April 28, 2020. http://www.coloursofresistance.org/360/building-a-canadian-decolonization-movementfighting-the-occupation-at-home/. Stubblefield, Anna. “‘Beyond the Pale’: Tainted Whiteness, Cognitive Disability, and Eugenic Sterilization.” Hypatia 22, no. 2 (2007): 162–181. Sullivan, Shannon. Good White People: The Problem with Middle-Class White Anti-Racism. SUNY Series, Philosophy and Race. Albany: SUNY Press, 2014. Thompson, Audrey. “Not the Color Purple: Black Feminist Lessons for Educational Caring.” Harvard Educational Review 68, no. 4 (December 1998): 522–55. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.68.4.nm436v83214n5016. ———. “Tiffany, Friend of People of Color: White Investments in Antiracism.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16, no. 1 (January 2003): 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000033509. Twine, France Winddance, and Charles Gallagher. “The Future of Whiteness: A Map of the ‘Third Wave.’” Ethnic and Racial Studies 31, no. 1 (January 2008): 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701538836. Whiteness, n.d. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0231.xml. Wright, Erik Olin. Envisioning Real Utopias. London ; New York: Verso, 2010.

46