summary of: declarations of whiteness: the non-performativity of anti-racism

original text

1. whiteness is only invisible to white people.

2. ahmed is critical of whiteness studies. looking at the effects of whiteness on non-whites as described by black feminists (audre lorde) would be a better starting point than others.

3. the risk of making whiteness the subject of study, even for anti-racist purposes, is that it might increasingly be seen as an object isolated from its effects (‘an essential something’)

4. related risk: keeping whiteness as the center of study

5. another risk: narcissism: appreciating whiteness either in contrast to non-whiteness, or by looking at, and identifying with, whiteness itself (self-reflexive gaze)

6. [unclear] the continuing expression of anxiety about whiteness becoming an object makes it an object [how so?] and may produce an ‘anxious whiteness’ as a side effect

7. anxious whiteness worries about the effects it has on others (not the effects others have on it). question: does/would that make it less racist?

8. placing ’critical’ before ‘whiteness studies’ is a sign of that anxiety. the word itself is not a good protection against doing the wrong kind of studies.

9. example case for co-opting of critical work: race equality policies. institutions that document their own racism critically(!) are congratulated for it.

10. risk: relating ‘the critical’ to performance and value, rather than making sure its effects are critical in the sense of challenging power structures.

11. there is a shift towards seeing declarations of bad practice as good practice. this indicates that anti-racism is seen as performative (i.e. producing its effects via acts of speech).

12. admitting one’s own racism is not an anti-racist action. it may even reproduce white privilege.

    I/we must be seen to be white

13. example: richard dyer: ‘whites must be seen to be white […] power is maintained by being unseen’. —> describes a paradox (seen what is white as white) and makes a claim about the present (whiteness is unseen)

14. pointing out that whiteness is invisible does not make it more visible (to white people). “the power of whiteness is maintained by being seen [by non-whites]”

15. seeing whiteness only makes sense as an exercise for white people. white privilege is what allows whites to see the way somebody sees things as a property/attribute [i.e. a way to describe and categorize people]

16. paradox: seeing your own whiteness makes you not white (‘transcendence’). white privilege allows you to see yourself as separate from it merely by ‘seeing’ it.

    I am/we are racist

17. example: report about police handling of the murder of stephen lawrence (1999). the report defined institutional racism by recognizing it as the failure to accommodate for the needs of non-whites.

18. institutional racism is defined as collective failure, i.e. in terms of a lack of something rather than the sum of individual actions, including the actions that made their ‘we’ a white ‘we’.

19. the institution is described as if it were an individual, thus taking the place of and potentially removing responsibility from individual people

20. paradox: if institutional racism is predicated on the inability of people who benefit from certain actions to see those actions, what does it mean to ‘see’ (that same) racism? [fronx: the axes of time and individuals could solve this paradox]

    I am/we are ashamed by my/our racism

21. individual shame can lead to demanding that shame be expressed on a national level. governor-general of australia (paraphrased): “pride has to be balanced with shame. this has nothing to do with personal guilt.”

22. ^— shame about the past as part of ‘our’ national identity. that past is impersonal for white individuals (‘cloak of national shame’), and personal for indigenous individuals (‘burden’ of telling their story).

23. shame about the “failure of the nation to live up to its ideals” in the past “becomes ground for a narrative of national recovery”.

24. feeling bad as a reason to feel good, conversion of shame into pride (example: “sorry books”)

25. public shame is the solution to personal shame about a lack of public shame, thus dissolving personal shame and allowing individuals to be proud (as australians).

26. ^— fails to recognize that this only applies to white australians. shame is a precondition for white people to celebrate the (white) nation of the present.

27. such expressions of national shame claim to achieve the conversion of shame to pride via mere acts of speech. they aim to restore white as the ideal.

    I am/we are happy (and racist people are sad)

28. paradox: shame about racism makes you not racist. / ‘reintegrative shaming’: disapproval —> forgiveness, instead of “casting the deviant out”

29. braithwaite 1989: shaming is only restorative if it is done by family/friends, not victims. model: “good” family —> bad feelings —> reacceptance —> good family

30. it is common to see racism as caused by bad feelings due to cultural differences and a “lack of hope”. in that light, anti-racism would aim to make [white] people feel better.

31. what whiteness studies concern themselves with is informed by the ideal of being a happy, non-racist white person.

32. within whiteness studies, there is resistance to the idea that it’s about making white people feel bad. reasons: 1. reaction to right-wing portrayal 2. avoiding centering on white people’s emotions. question: does that achieve a turning towards something else / if so: to what?