Alcoff begins to set up her argument, this becomes evident on page 6 when she says “We should be tearing away the cloak, they argue, not giving into the idea that whiteness is real” in the context that we should not recognize whiteness as it is the driver of oppression and negativity in society. The thought process is we should ignore whiteness. Alcoff begins to critique that point.
Moving into the next section, alcoff begins to lay out her argument for recognizing the white identity. One quote that really stuck out to me straight away on the first paragraph of this section was “whiteness as a term is not coterminous with dominance, but with a particular historical experience and relationship to certain historical events” (pg 7). Already Alcoff’s argument is starting to make a lot of sense. I too fell into the category of ignoring whiteness, and thinking we should remove the “cloak” as Alcoff said earlier.
Also on page 7, Alcoff quotes Bonilla-Silva which I thought was really cool. I enjoyed Bonilla-Silva’s work when we read it the other week, and I think Alcoff uses it perfectly to support the point she making there.
On page 9, Alcoff starts to argue her points for why we need to recognize the white identity. There are many different aspects of white culture and life, and everyone has had a different upbringing. What Alcoff wrote to have me bring this up was “We focus too often on the gap between white and black and brown, and miss the growing gap among whites”. There is major differences in how white people in different areas of the country perceive and feel about different events.
Next Alcoff explores the history of the white identity. “In truth, the formation of white identity was not merely a ploy, but an identity category that helpfully filled a void created by the European diaspora and cross-ethnic amalgamations” (pg 10) in which she starts to explore the early inception of the white identity and how the multitude of Europeans that came from different countries soon melted into one white identity in America over time. One major point Alcoff makes is that whiteness was meant to divide the work force, which makes a lot of sense, and Alcoff says “just think how different it might have been if this working mob had been interpellated simply by a national identity that would have united people across continents of origin” highlighting how the differences between races contribute to the division of labor in America.
Another interesting part on page 11, when Russell Banks is talking about how his father referred to Italians as Guineas. This is interesting because I am Italian myself, and also because it shows exactly how fragmented the white identity was during its creation. Italian people today are considered white, and apart of the white identity.
Alcoff says on page 18, “Based on this complicated history of whiteness, this book will argue against the inevitability of white reaction and against the idea that white identity cannot adapt in positive ways to a loss of centrality” this is a very interesting point. The way she has set the book up so far makes for a very interesting argument. From what I’ve read so far it is very evident in society that most people won’t touch the issue of whiteness with a 10 foot pole, and most people just want to ignore it and hope it will not exist one day. I like Alcoff’s point that whiteness can still remain even when not in centrality.
On page 20, speaking about whiteness, “and the future of its material effects is, particularly today, in some doubt”, here alcoff is talking about how the white identity is ever changing, being reinterpreted, how it’s dynamic. This is what leads me to believe that overtime white people will fall in line with the rest of society. It’s already starting to happen now, and I think that is what Alcoff is referring to when she is talking about doubt.
On page 21 Alcoff says, “The truth is that whiteness is not an illusion but a historically evolving identity-formation that is produced in diverse locations” and that makes a lot of sense. So far Alcoff has used several examples of how the white Identity has changed over time, and it continues to change even to this day. That is very interesting to think about because it means whiteness can’t go away, as much as some want it to. This seems to further argue for why we should recognize the white identity.
On page 24 Alcoff highlights the fact that there are more and more interracial families in America, “This is what is beginning to erode. White families are not always so white anymore”, and this is a very important point to consider because over time it means that the white dominance that is held right now, will be no more. Alcoff’s larger point that is basically all of page 24, is that in the 60’s white liberals wanted no more racism, but with clear distinctions between black and white, this is something that is changing. This gives me reason to believe that over time whites will become and a more even level with other races.
I genuinely agree with Alcoff’s argument so far, she has made very thorough points. Especially over pages 23-25, and she continues you hammer home her point on page 25, “The persistence of whiteness as an aspect of identity is not an open question. It is not withering away or fragmenting beyond all recognition”, she is making it very clear that we cannot ignore the white identity, no matter how bad the history associated with it is. And we must remove the negative history from the white identity, over time.
On pages 29-35 Alcoff begins to explain her experiences growing up, and how this shaped her identity. I think this was very interesting to include in the book, as it really helps set up her argument that the white identity is different person to person, and that we must understand who we are. On page 35, alcoff says “My mother's family was not only poor, they were poor white, and both categories are needed to understand their lives”, which is a very good point to make. We cannot separate race and class as they are intrinsic to each other.
Alcoff wraps up this introduction on page 36, and one thing she says is very poignant “In reality, whiteness is not simply an identity that emerged from racism and the repression of other groups” which pulls together the introduction to her argument. Alcoff ends this section by saying, “How can whiteness, in short, become a part of the rainbow of diverse peoples? How can whiteness become bearable?” and these are very good questions to ask, because society is changing so much, white people are going to need to “fall in line” so to speak.
Chapter 1
Alcoff starts out this chapter by restating that whiteness is a social construct created by “someone”. This is a strong sentiment, that many people sometimes do not want to accept, but is important for the argument going forward.
Next Alcoff uses two examples of how racial identities are observed. The first example is from post communist Yugoslavia, during the Yugoslav wars, when the identity of ethnic Bosnians were killed just because of their identity. The second example is from Rwanda where the government outlawed the identifying of racial groups all together. In both instances, the outcome is negative. This is interesting, and it’s starting to pull Alcoff’s argument together. Alcoff goes on to say on page 42, “Censoring identity talk only impedes the project of reassessing identities and reimagining their possible interrelationships” aka if we do not talk about identities, then we can never integrate. This is a very interesting argument that Alcoff uses, and it’s one I agree with.
On page 45, Alcoff beings to lay out the determining factors of what constitutes an identity. There are 4 things that constitute an identity, and they are: “(1) explanatory, (2) an aspect of our material existence, (3) a feature of collective or group subjectivity, and (4) the necessary effect, at least in some cases, of historical experiences”, Alcoff states that if an identity fits into all of those 4 categories, then it is a true racial identity.
On page 46, under the first explanation of an identity, Alcoff says “We might ask, does whiteness actually explain cross-class allegiances among white people, or does it divert our attention from better explanations?” making the point that identities must explain what that group is, and how they are all interconnected.
On page 49, Alcoff talks about how being “colorblind” actually participates in Racism, “promoting “colorblindness” or attempting to ignore entirely the distinctiveness of bodily types and appearances are simply unrealistic proposals that will mask, rather than overcome, the practices of racism”. This is relevant to Alcoff’s argument because she is making the point that we must identify all races and identities, because that is the only way we can move forward. This is under the second explanation for an identity, that an identity is apart of our material existence.
On 53, to along with the 3rd explanation for an identity, alcoff says, “Part of what it means to have a social identity, then, is to have one's self formed within a collective system of meanings that bears elements of that identity”, meaning that an identity is formed through the need to have a collective social identity, and this further argues for the need to recognize whiteness. Like Alcoff has stated, if whiteness where to go away, white people would have no tangible thing in society to call their own.
On page 56, Alcoff is talking about the last explanation for an identity, and it is historical experiences. Alcoff said [talking about panamanian flag on her car] “Upon seeing the decal, people have rolled down their windows at stoplights to chat with me about where in Panama they are from” and this shows that the collective history of a group can constitute an identity. In this instance it is the history of family migration from Panama to America, which creates a bond between those people, and identity.
Alcoff wraps this section up by saying she is moving on to further explain the position of “whiteness” in society. So far her argument has been incredibly convincing. The claim that whiteness is a true identity is something that makes complete sense, and it is interesting because everyday discourse talks about stamping out whiteness.
On page 62, Alcoff makes a very interesting, and seemingly obvious, point “Ethnicity cannot replace race”. She makes the point that ethnicity and race are two separate things. This is seemingly obviously, but it is often misused in today's discourse. We have to separate race from ethnicity to understand that race is purely a construct of society. A page prior Alcoff said denying racism is a social construct is analogous to denying climate change. That is a very apt analogy.
On page 63, Alcoff makes it explicitly clear that “I do not take whiteness to refer to a biological category, or a genetic grouping”. Which is again central to her argument because whiteness is something that is made up. Something that has evolved in society over time, and not a static thing of biology that can never change. Alcoff focuses on the societal aspect of identity.
Next Alcoff beings to talk about the roll of class in identities. This is important because the experience of one white person, is not the exact same as the white person to their left. To that point, Alcoff says, “Because of these mediations of identity, some white people have experienced discrimination and stereotyping that are analogous to the racism experienced by nonwhites, while other white identities have had little to no such experiences” (pg 69). This lays out the different ways that the white identity is formed, and how different experience affect that formation. All very important concepts to understand when considering whiteness as a true identity.
On page 70, Alcoff touches on colorism, “Darity's work shows that, while whiteness may not be necessary for job success, lightness still is, indicating a color hierarchy that extends beyond whites themselves” which is also important in understanding the place of all identities in society.
On page 72, Alcoff talks about how exactly an identity is talked about, and they are “an empirically measurable social kind, an imaginary or representational kind, or a process for the formation of particular kinds of selves”. Boiling these points down alcoff calls them “as (1) empirical whiteness, (2) imaginary whiteness, and (3) subjective whiteness”.
On page 76, alcoff says “Without a doubt, “whiteness” as a category has an empirical referent” which is important because this is required to be considered an identity. Whiteness is a tangible thing in society.
After empirical whiteness, Alcoff explain imaginary whiteness. Alcoff is talking about the concept of what white people think being white means. This whole paragraph from page 82 really stuck out
Imaginary whiteness is not simply the repository of unreason: some versions of it, at least, can be linked to real historical experiences that congeal into images informing the interpretation and judgment of new events. In fact, the acknowledgment of racist injustice also informs many whites' own imaginary about white identity, I would suggest. This aspect of the white imaginary can explain the patterns of behavior – denial, avoidance, self-segregation – we might think of as resulting from a guilty conscience.
This is more argument for recognizing the white identity. The relation to society is too great, and understanding whiteness as an identity can help us understand society as a whole and how races interact.
Under subjective whiteness, another passage resonated with me. That passage was on page 83 “Whites do tend to have, however, their own peculiar inclinations, affects, practices, and modes of perception”. Which Alcoff i think means that white people are just like every other race, they have their own different ways of doing things. Overall the majority of the arguments that Alcoff puts forth are very sound. Whiteness is an identity just as non whiteness is.
The experiment that Alcoff cites on page 87 is very interesting. Of course the results of the study are predictable, as alcoff said, they paint a bright picture of how different racial identities are and how much of an effect they have on society, and how we interact with each other.
At the end of the assigned reading for this book, I am left agreeing completely with alcoff. We must acknowledge all identities in society, and the white identity is one that we must acknowledge as well. I fell into the camp of saying that we should ignore whiteness, because of the abuses tied to whiteness historically. Alcoff’s argument is really strong, and highlighted the importance of recognizing the white identity so white people can better understand who they are, and also to understand the place whiteness has in society as we head to a non white dominated society.
.