History, Honesty, Whiteness, and Blackness by Lillian Holt - Article Example

Article Review Student’s Name: Lecture’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Holt, L. (2007). History, Honesty, Whiteness and Blackness [online]. In: Boucher, Leigh (Editor); Carey, Jane (Editor); Ellinghaus, Katherine (Editor). Historicising Whiteness: Transnational Perspectives on the Construction of an Identity. Melbourne, Vic.: RMIT Publishing in association with the School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne, 2007: 1-5. Melbourne University conference and seminar series ; 16. Introduction In any multi racial nation, interracial relations constitutes an important national discourse that is worth interrogating especially when one race has a bearing over the other as they go down in the annals of history as critical aspect of that nation and offers insights on nation building. One such article is the work by Lillian Holt titled ‘History, Honesty, Whiteness and Blackness’ which was the keynote addresses in conference themed ‘Historicising Whiteness: Transnational Perspectives on the Construction of an Identity’ which was hosted in the University of Melbourne from 22 to 24 November 2006. The purpose of her article is to outline the impact of the deliberate notion of white race being superior to the indigenous black individuals and how it influenced the construction of identity of indigenous people in Australia and how interrogation of whiteness can be utilised to drive towards reconciliation through total racial inclusivity. Indeed her article manages to show the impact of white race on construction of identity of indigenous individuals through various case examples. However, she points that she is not limited with being labelled an aborigine. In this context she utilises the case example of her mother and the constant reference her past experiences and the corroboration from her white counterparts who confesses that being white works in Australia. Her point of entry for solution finding is the admission by her white colleagues that white works. She sees this as owning up process which is integral in building reconciliation in Australia where social construction of whiteness and ethnocentrism is deconstructed to create an equal society. Summary The ultimate focus and the purpose of the conference paper by Lillian Holt (2007) is to describe how the earlier belief induced on indigenous people by whites that their system of life was superior/ right than the former has influenced their construction of identity by instilling the notion that everything from whites is right. In this regard, whiteness is treated as a social construction created by racial ethnocentric white individuals so as to marginalise the indigenous black people. She gives a historical walk through whiteness dominated racial relations as aboriginal Australian through past experience or in situations where black natives hoped to be whites since there is where all good things originated; relies on the interaction she had with her mother pertaining racial relations by then and how they informed her mother about white superiority; and the confession from her white colleagues whom she terms as ‘conversational corroboree’ who indeed affirms the belief that system in Australia favour white skinned individuals. The subsequent question that emerges is which audience does she target? The target audience for this presentation can be conceptualised from two perspectives. The first is based on her topic which has two important adjectives. These are Whiteness and Blackness. From this observation, there is a clear indication that her target audience are Australians of white descent and those of black descent. Indeed, this anchored on the fact it is the two owing to prevailing societal dynamics had a strained relations with the white having a bearing over the natives who do not have white skin with the latter being the ones their social identity was being constructed to believe that everything white is right or superior. Secondly, her target is the whole Australian population as she states that interrogation of racial relations within context of whiteness is significant in attaining reconciliation. The principal line of her argument presented to the audience is that while being labelled aborigine informs her, she is not confined within the limitations of the same since it is not the creation of native communities of Australia. Thus to her, racial relations should be utilised in the national discourse of building reconciliation since the concept of whiteness under racial relations should be about total inclusivity and not the one sided interrogations that have been fronted over the time. The two way approach is exhibited in certain circumstances where not being white impacts on her thinking and in certain circumstances she comes out as not being confined to these labelling. The core to her argument is juxtaposition approach where she outlines the narrations she gained from her mother and her experiences and how she has managed to walk through whiteness by not being constantly burdened by aboriginality. In this regard, she seeks to outline in one hand the notion that ‘white matter’ and on the other hand refute it that ‘white does not matter’. To affirm her argument in the presentation, the paper is structured in such a way that in one instance it shows that indeed skin colour matters and that whiteness enjoys supremacy. To expound on this notion, Holt gives a case example of the socialising she received from her mother and the social meaning inculcated on her mum that whites are superior. The second are her first hand experience from her colleagues who constantly probed her aboriginal status; the third is the earlier notion she had after completing university that education would save her from the negative labelling and grouping; her wish with other black colleagues to be white albeit for a day and associated experiences of not being white. To sum all these feeling of ‘white works’ Holt (2007) relies on what she refers to us as conversational corroborees who alludes to the fact that being white matters. In the second scenario, she gives her personal opinion that she is not confined by being labelled aborigine. For instance she states that ‘today I still joke with other blackfellas who seem to intuitively understand the irony of sometimes wanting to be white’. In another instance, she states that ‘not that I was constantly burdened by the angst of Aboriginality’. The bottom-line of her argument is that interrogation of whiteness has not been approached in the right way where it can contribute towards national reconciliation and total inclusivity. This is why she appreciates the fact that labelling that white is superior is bad in creation of a mental blockade that creates white race as superior to others and thus need for a paradigm shift. Critique Use of Personalised Narrative One critical approach that she has offered in her discourse is the personalised or autobiographical narrative methodology of writting that is drawn from life histories. This is evident by the way she utilises her first hand experiences and that of her immediate family members to engage in the discourse. Brewster (2005) notes that personalised expositions are integral in the process of deconstructing whiteness topic as it goes a long way in analysis of whiteness in relation to historical and Australian cultural development context from interviews, personalised narratives and autobiography. For instance, Holt (2007, p.2) quotes her mother as telling her, ‘Lillian, let me show you how to do it properly. White people taught me how’. In most literatures of whiteness done by Holt, personalised narrative is an overriding theme that she utilises. Holt (2000) in her work ‘Pssst … I wannabe white’ employees the same autobiographical and personalised experiences where she outlines her earlier ambitions in stages of life where she yearn she would have been a white. Frow (2002, p.633) observes that an individual’s life can be conceptualised as ‘reproduction of the person’. As such, personalised whiteness writing constitutes a significant part of dissecting the reproduction of racialised opportunities at the micropolitical stage. Such kind or argument in works relating to whiteness is corroborated by Fanon (1976, p.183) who refers to the mode of investigation as ‘racialised intersubjectivity’ which is integral in ‘explorative ethics of relationality’. Additionally, to appreciate the application of personalised narrative in discussing whiteness by Holt, Frankenberg (1996, p.11) indicates that whiteness is not limited to collective and institutionally informed identity, but also through personalised experience. By applying personalised narrative, Holt (2000) notes that this allows her to take responsibility and share her experiences. However, while the use of personal narrative and autobiography as a writing methodology has proved to be integral in deconstructing whiteness. The first person perspective is not adequate in addressing relationality as a means of capturing the other peoples’ – whites’- perspective. Such thinking is corroborated by Wiegman (p.149-150) who posits that excursions in whiteness should not be extremely aware of itself. Brewster (2005) concurs with the same argument by noting that personalised whiteness discourses do not play a principal role in break in the propagation of race privillage. Position of the paper within whiteness/ white privilege studies The other point of discussion relates to the position the conference paper occupies in relation to the field of whiteness or white privilege studies. In regard to this discourse, the ultimate onus of an interrogation would be to show how power and privilege of whiteness is reproduced within societies (Green, Sonn & Matsebula, 2007, p.389).The one outstanding feature here is Holt having an adequate grasp of whiteness as result of not being a white. This offers her opportunity to indulge into the discourse as part of the populace which is on the receiving end. Indeed, such thinking is summarised by Moreton-Robinson (2000, p.186) who while thinking out loud interrogates how one can question power … from a position of power? He notes that ‘one ought to question power from its antagonistic position, namely the position of weakness. Indeed Holt comes in as a antagonistic individual while discussing whiteness since she is an indigenous individual and they are the ones who are on the receiving end. In talking about individual or a race/ community being in the receiving end, conceptualisation of whiteness becomes integral. Morrison (1992, p.33) notes that whiteness exist as result of definition that is comparative in terms of not being black or not being coloured. On the other hand, Babb (1998) sees it as a system that accords whites privileges over other individuals with different skin colour (p. 9).This conceptualisations leads to what Thompson (2001, p.2) notes that white privilege depends on devaluation of non-whites. As affirmation to this observation that constitute one of the strengths of Holt’s presentation, Holt (2000), notes that ‘Most people of colour have endless opportunity to observe whiteness, given that most have to live in it, whereas the opposite is not true for whitefellas ’. The question that emerges is how does devaluation of others who are non-white occur until their subsequent generation accepts that social stance which then ends up in construction of their identity? Construction of identity can be best explained through interaction theory and stance/ framing given by various socialisation agents by ascribing social meanings to various elements within the society by either determining their behaviour as acceptable or not (Andersen and Taylor, 2011, p.176) and since human beings are able to learn from their environment as postulated in social learning theory if the reward exceeds punishment (Bandura, 1977, p.305 & 306). Such is exemplified by the policy of concentration at Cherbourg, Native Affairs Act role of Protector of Aborigines in determining those had assimilated enough (Holt, 2006, p.3). Indeed such devaluation has been pointed out by Holt (2007). One such devaluation is the mental blockade that her mother gained as result of socialisation that she received while at Cherbourg which taught her that aborigines and their culture is less superior that that of the whites. Such mentality is greatly anchored on labelling theory that affirms the fact that one is likely to conform to the social labelling and social meaning ascribed to her by the society (McLaren and Torres 1999, p. 56). The same is affirmed by Holt (2007) who indicates that when you label an individual, you limit their capacity to perform. In a nutshell, her argument concurs with the concept of whiteness as a socially constructed phenomenon that is given meaning by racist individuals who are ethnocentric since racism is not a biological phenomenon (Thompson, 1999, p.143). Nevertheless, while the paper addresses the issues of whiteness, the pedagogy of whiteness presented in Holt’s discourse is limited to two affair dwell between aborigines and whites and thus other non whites who reside in Australia might find it difficult to relate to it. Such glaring discrepancy is highly highlighted by Nicoll (2004). In his research about teaching critical whiteness theory, he found out that non-aborigine students who were not whites found it difficult to associate with the theory. Indeed, some wondered if such theoretical thinking could lead to radicalised nation based on identity politics. Position in relation to racism Hlolt (2007) manages to capture the theme of how she was recialised and made to be an Aborigine. According to Frankenberg (1996), personalised narrative is significant in ‘coming to consciousness about one’s racial identity and or race privilege as white’. Such argument closely connects to the theme of construction of a new social identity of aborigines that is created by the whites which is the informing factor of whiteness that Holt (2007) attempts at explaining. Identity and social identity heavily relies on subsequent categorisation ascribed to individuals within the society. This in turn influences individuals or group behaviour (Stets & Burke, 2000, p.228). In this regard the social identity that is created is that of everything emanating from white is superior or good and thus, for an individual to enjoy these goodies, he or she must aspire to behave as whites. The proponents of whiteness concept seeks to establish a hierarchical order that places individuals with white skin at the top of positive aspects of humanity while vilifying other individuals with different colours (Hartmann, Gerteis & Croll, 2009, p.403-404). Conclusion . The chief focus of this discourse was to critically asses the article by Holt (2006). The concepts and ideas presented in this masterpiece work are marvellous and critical in developing a socially united Australia where one race does not feel on top of the others. One of the strengths of the paper is the application of personalised narrative that allows the narrator to explain in first hand as the individual in the receiving end what whiteness means and it role in construction of social identity. Secondly, the conference paper has a strong presentation on whiteness studies and how it can be deconstructed. Lastly, the presentation manages to outline how whiteness constructs racial identity. References Andersen, M. & Taylor, H. (2011). Sociology: The Essentials, 6th edn., Wadsworth Cengage, Belmont, CA Learning. Babb, V. (1998). Whiteness visible: The meaning of whiteness in American literature and culture, New York, New York University Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brewster, A. (2005). Writing whiteness: the personal turn. Fanon, F. (1976). The Wretched of the Earth , (1965), tr. Constance Farrington. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Frankenberg, R. (1996). 'When We are Capable of Stopping We Begin to See: Being White, Seeing Whiteness', in Becky Thompson and Sangeeta Tyagi (eds), Names We Call Home: Autobiographies on Racial Identity , New York : Routledge, pp 3-17. Frow, J. (2002). Never Draw to an Inside Straight: On Everyday Knowledge. New Literary History, 33: 623-37. Green, M. J., Sonn, C. C., & Matsebula, J. (2007). Reviewing whiteness: Theory, research, and possibilities. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(3), 389-419. Hartmann, D., Gerteis, J. & Croll, P. (2009). An Empirical Assessment of Whiteness Theory: Hidden from How Many? Social Problems, Vol. 56, No. 3, p. 403-424. Holt, L. (2007). History, Honesty, Whiteness and Blackness [online]. In: Boucher, Leigh (Editor); Carey, Jane (Editor); Ellinghaus, Katherine (Editor). Historicising Whiteness: Transnational Perspectives on the Construction of an Identity. Melbourne, Vic.: RMIT Publishing in association with the School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne, 2007: 1-5. Melbourne University conference and seminar series ; 16. McLaren, P and Torres, R (1999). Racism and multicultural education: Rethinking 'race' and 'whiteness' in late capitalism. In Critical multiculturalism: Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education, edited by S. May. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. 42-76. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000). Talkin’ Up to the White Woman. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the dark: Whiteness and the literary imagination, MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Nicoll, F. (2004). Are you calling me a racist?: Teaching critical whiteness theory in Indigenous sovereignty, Borderlands, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 1-8. Stets, J. & Burke, P. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory, Social psychology quarterly, p. 224-237. Thompson, A. (1999). Colortalk: Whiteness and Off White, Educational Studies, Vol. 30, p. 141-160. Thompson, A. (2001). Summary of whiteness theory, viewed 3rd Jan 2014 from http://www. pauahtun.org/Whiteness-Summary-1. html . Wiegman, Robyn. (1999). 'Whiteness Studies and the Paradox of Particularity', boundary 2, 28 (3): 115-50. Read More