White Privilege (Compare and Contrast) - Essay Example

?White Privilege Within critical race theory, the concept of white privilege is essentially rooted in the premise of white people being accorded specific advantages due to the intrinsic social inequality between white and non-white people, particularly within the American and European social construct (Rothenberg). The concept of white privilege has remained a contentious subject of academic discourse within critical race theory and the focus of this paper is to compare and contrast the different perspectives pertaining to the concept of white privilege with specific reference to Tim Wise’s “This is Your Nation on White Privilege”, Blanche Curry’s “Whiteness and Feminism”; Joy James’ “maintaining and Kicking White Supremacy”; Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, and Tiffany Joseph’s “Why don’t you get somebody new to do it” Race and cultural taxation in the academy. It is submitted at the outset that the underlying common thread between these academic commentaries is the acknowledgement of the theoretical concept of white privilege as a symbol of inequality between the opportunities and advantages accorded to white people in contrast to non-whites within the American social construct. For example, whilst using different narrative perspectives, both Wise and McIntosh highlight what they appear to believe is the undisputed reality of white privilege in America. McIntosh uses subjective experience to refer to the distinct advantages she has in the workplace in comparison to her African American counterparts: “39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race... 43. I can have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem” (McIntosh 4). Similarly, Wise refers to the distinction in racial perceptions being directly attributable to the concept of “white privilege” by using a listing technique for emphasis similar to McIntosh. For example, Wise comments that “white privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck... talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible all American boy....rather than a thug” (Wise). However, whilst these commentaries seek to highlight the concept of white privilege and its impact on the perception and stereotypes within the American social paradigm; some of the commentaries seek to go beyond pre-existing assumptions regarding white privilege within critical race theory by evaluating the white privilege paradigm through a contextual approach. This is particularly evident with Curry and Joseph’s contextual analysis of the overriding influence of white perspectives in seminal aspects of academic discourse. For example, on the one hand Wise’s somewhat sarcastic take on the concept of white privilege highlights the fact that racial inequality permeates social assumptions and preconceptions in American society in particular (Wise). On the other hand, Curry’s discussion of white privilege undertakes a contextual approach with specific reference to developments in feminism and feminist theory to highlight how the dominance of the white perspective in feminist theory ignores important female perspectives which are imperative to a comprehensive and representative model of feminist theory (Curry 243). Moreover, Curry argues that the concept of feminism is intrinsically linked to the subjective experience and as such, the cultural experience is important in the continuous development of feminist theory. Curry suggests that the dominance of white privilege within America’s social history means that the pre-existing discourse on feminism and feminist theory has developed with a white bias that ignores other cultures (Curry 244). For example, Curry highlights the point that whilst there is a “known and populist version of feminism”, she suggests that the dominance of accepted feminism theory being white has led to “deja-vu” marginalisation, which in turn undermines the weight accorded to pre-existing feminist discourse (Curry 244). Furthermore Curry develops this argument further by commenting that the result of white dominance in feminist theory has unwittingly led to racism within the feminist discourse because of “white women/feminists who are uninformed about race matters and other multiple legitimate differences”(Curry 245). Similar to Curry, Joseph and Hirshfield also utilises specific context to underline the influence of white privilege in the social construct. Whilst Curry’s focus is on feminism, Joseph and Hirshfield undertake an in depth analysis of the dichotomy between white and non-white academic university and college academic staff as a result of “cultural taxation”. Whereas Wise and McIntosh’s discussion of white privilege refers in general terms to the racial inequalities and due to advantages accorded to whites within pre-existing social constructs; Joseph and Hirshfield’s analysis focuses on the burden placed upon non-white academic staff as a specific consequence of white privilege. For example, Joseph and Hirshfield refer to the cultural taxation model introduced to non-white faculty staff in universities and colleges and comment that: “literature on cultural taxation suggests that faculty of colour often have more departmental and university obligations since they are expected to teach the same load and achieve the same standards as their white peers while also serving on diversity committees and advising students of colour” (Joseph and Hirshfield 123). Moreover, in undertaking empirical research involving firsthand accounts with both white and non-white academic faculty staff, Joseph and Hirshfield’s investigation highlights that the reality for non-white faculty staff is that “faculty of colour experience cultural taxation and must demonstrate their merit in ways that their white colleagues do not” (135). To this end, whilst Joseph and Hirshfield undertakes a specific contextual analysis of the academic industry, the result of their findings highlights and reinforces the arguments made by McIntosh, Wise and James that white privilege permeates every aspect of American society resulting. For example, Wise highlights the scope for injustice with the underlying divide created by white privilege by commenting that: “White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party.... and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you’re black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful” (Wise). Moreover, all five commentaries highlight the dangers to the development of socio-cultural constructs and integration of the continued dominance of white privilege and white supremacy. For example as highlighted above, through a contextual focus on feminism theory Curry highlights the point racial and cultural differences lead to difference experiences as a woman. Therefore, on this basis the pre-existing “voice” in feminism theory is intrinsically white and risks ignoring the experience and discourse of other races. In reinforcing this argument, Curry utilises the concept of white privilege to question pre-existing feminist theory and to support her argument for the development of the “third voice” model for feminist theory going forward (Curry, 246). This is highlighted by Curry’s observation that: “Whiteness is a position of privilege that assumes the role of a sovereign voice along with the narcissistic and psychological power of whiteness” ( Curry 246). Throughout the contextual analysis Curry mentions how the social construct of America due to its difficult racial history has facilitated the creation of a white bias, which in the long term continues to undermine the veracity of pre-existing feminist theory if the third voice model is not adopted. Indeed, as highlighted by the observations of James, Wise and McIntosh in particular, the dominance of white privilege in racial inequality continues to influence and dictate social perceptions. In turn, this facilitates stereotypes, which is mirrored by Curry’s argument that the white dominance in feminism theory is dangerous due to what she refers to as pre-existing white perceptions of African Americans, which in turn leads to racism within feminist theory. Indeed, Curry’s notion of racial perceptions being informed by white privilege is mirrored by James arguments in “Mainlining (& Kicking) White Supremacy”. However, James’ commentary is more general akin to the discussion of Wise and McIntosh and James specifically utilises the concept of white privilege to underline what she refers to as the “white supremacy” (WS) model, which James opines underlines the social fabric of American society. For example, James argues that the WS model has not only led to accepted racial perceptions and stereotypes, it has also significantly shaped and informed social constructs in America where everything is viewed and interpreted within racial boundaries (James 262). Similar to Curry, James’ arguments relates to the interrelationship between white privilege and white supremacy, however whereas Curry’s focus has been on white privilege and white dominance within the development of feminist theory; James’ discussion is similar to Wise and McIntosh in referring to the impact of white privilege and WS on American society as a whole. To this end, James suggests that the implications of white privilege and WS have been far reaching and continues to affect every fabric of the American socio-cultural consciousness, whereby she likens WS as an “addiction” and a “disease” (262). Moreover, James comments that: “The false dichotomies between classroom purveyor and street pusher, suburban recreational user and urban junkie, bank launderer and immigrant mule suggest that words have become weapons in a rhetorical war on WS” (264). In addition to highlighting the impact of WS on racial stereotypes, James’ further reinforces Curry’s arguments about the dangers of racial stereotyping and white dominance in perceptions of other races in social theory by commenting that “white addicts are assumed to be able to handle their addictions with dignity and civility while black addicts are presumed to be emboldened by theirs into a savagery only recently relinquished” (James 265). James’ discourse on the impact of white privilege on racial stereotypes is reflected by McIntosh’s narrative in “unpacking invisible knapsacks”. However, in contrast to James’ narrative, McIntosh focuses on her subjective experience as a beneficiary of white privilege to provide a firsthand account of social inequality. McIntosh’s uncomfortable acknowledgement of the reality of white privilege is reinforced by the fact that she always viewed racism as creating inequality yet failed to realise the fact that as a white person she has an advantage (1). As such, this is similar to James’ argument that white privilege and WS permeates the social fabric of American society. What makes McIntosh’s perspective so interesting is the fact that she acknowledges this advantage from a completely non-racial and impartial perspective as an observer as opposed to any expression of opinion rooted in racial stereotypes. This is highlighted through McIntosh’s list of observations regarding the daily effects of white privilege: “4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbours in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me. 5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed” (2). In listing the various aspects of daily life that differentiate McIntosh from non-white Americans as a direct result of white privilege, McIntosh reinforces the arguments in all five commentaries which highlight the reality of white privilege as opposed to being a mere theoretical concept. It is further submitted that this argument is one of the common threads throughout all of the commentaries, which serve to highlight the reality of white privilege through practical examples. Moreover, the above analysis highlights that whilst the five commentaries present different aspects of white privilege; each analysis is unanimous in acknowledging the correlation between America’s racial history and the culmination of white privilege as a social reality. Furthermore, through differing perspectives, the academic commentaries in each article serve to highlight the fact that white privilege has underlined the development of socio-cultural constructions in the American social framework; which in turn has significantly informed social perceptions and racial stereotypes that need to be re-evaluated and addressed for effective social integration going forward. BIBLIOGRAPHY Curry, Blanche Radford. “Whiteness and Feminism: Deja Vu Discourses: What Next?” What White Looks Like: African American Philosophers on the Whiteness Question. Eds. George-Yancy. London: Routledge, 2004. Joseph, Tiffany and Hirshfield, Laura Jones, “Why don’t you get somebody new to do it?” Race and Cultural Taxation in the academy” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 29, No.4 July 2005. James, Joy, “The Academic Addict: Mainlining (& Kicking) White Supremacy”. What White Looks Like: African American Philosophers on the Whiteness Question. Eds. George-Yancy. London: Routledge, 2004. McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, 1988 retrieved at www.nymbp.org accessed March 2011. Rothenberg, Paula. White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism. Worth Publishers, 2007. Wise, Tim. “This is Your Nation on White Privilege” September 13 2008. Read More