Topic: Tape a conversation with some of your friends talking about race, or gender. Examine the talk for indexicality and negotiations regarding race.

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 685

Defending whiteness indirectly: a synthetic approach to race discourse analysis

J O H N D . F O S T E R U N I V E R S I T Y O F A R K A N S A S A T P I N E B L U F F , U S A

A B S T R A C T This article examines the discursive method utilized by a sample of white college students in the United States when engaging in racetalk. Findings reveal myriad contradictions within their responses. It is suggested that these contradictions are not coincidental; rather, they serve two important functions for the speakers: first, they aid the interlocutors in their impression management (i.e. their image of a nonracist); and second, the rationalization of the racial order. Utilizing an integrative approach, it is argued that this form of racetalk, whether intentionally or unintentionally, defends the white racial frame. This racetalk allows respondents to (1) project blame onto nonwhite Americans for race problems in US society, and (2) acknowledge racial difference only in contexts in which it favors whites.

K E Y W O R D S : contradictions, racetalk, racism, white racial frame, whiteness

Introduction

The biggest [thing] I really hate is just like you know (.) you could have preconceived notions about a person, but I don’t want anybody to form an opinion on them automatically before even talking to them.

(Troy, study participant)

In the above quote, the speaker delivers a contradictory statement. In Troy’s statement, he first claims to detest those who assume an individual’s character without any knowledge of who they are (and exerting some emotion with the word ‘hate’ in the process). Then he legitimizes the very same social action he had just expressed disapproval for. As previous studies (Van Dijk, 1987; Frankenberg, 1993; Bonilla-Silva, 2003) have documented, contradictions appear when white Americans discuss racial matters. Yet little is known about why whites speak in such a way. Race discourse is important to examine because ‘discourse is a form of social action’ (Van Den Berg, 2003: 120), and ‘discourse is intimately involved

A R T I C L E

Discourse & Society Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications

(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)

www.sagepublications.com Vol 20(6): 685–703

10.1177/0957926509342062

686 Discourse & Society 20(6)

in the construction and maintenance of inequality’ (Wetherell, 2003: 13). This form of ‘racetalk’ is the focus of this article: how to make sense of the myriad contradictions in the race discourse of white Americans. What purpose(s) do these contradictions serve the whites that use them? This article examines this discursive phenomenon with a qualitative approach that attempts to avoid the pitfalls of previous studies.

Among all types of social action, discourse is a critical tool in the legitimation process. How do white Americans claim to support racial equality and fairness while simultaneously opposing programs and policies deemed necessary to achieve racial equality and fairness? How can they claim to have no problems with black Americans yet report so few quality1 relationships with them? As a result, whites walk a discursive tightrope when discussing racial matters, and contradictions appear throughout. Race is a social fact, and whites’ race discourse is unique in various ways. This article presents the framework of this discursive form. First, evidence is presented that these contradictions assist white respondents in their impression management, focusing particular attention on the method of placing blame on racial others for racial tensions. Second, evidence is presented that these contradictions provide assistance in the preservation of white hegemony and white privilege, with a focus on respondents’ selective racial consciousness; that is, one that recognizes whiteness only when portrayed in a positive light (often at the expense of blackness).

Contradictions abound within the race discourse of white Americans, and the argument put forth here is that they are not coincidental. Events like the poor government response to Hurricane Katrina provide evidence that the United States is unequivocally a racially separate and unequal country. Thus, when discussing race relations in their country, white Americans have a lot to answer for, given that these disparities in life chances continue to exist in a society in which the proponents of racial equality had presumably prevailed and are celebrated today. Whites must immediately find (through little effort or time) that their privileges far exceed those of black Americans. It is understandable that whites might be careful to appear nonracist in formal interactions due to present-day customs discussing racial issues; however, why wouldn’t whites just say anything to maintain an appearance of nonracism to avoid such a label (e.g. admitting that they receive unfair privileges)?

Studies on race discourse (Van Dijk, 1987; Frankenberg, 1993) have mentioned how whites speak in certain ways to avoid an appearance of racism. This is certainly true, but there is something more going on here: individual whites not only defend themselves within their repertoires but they also defend the racist social institutions that perpetuate white supremacy in US society. Some linguists (e.g. Pomerantz and Zemel, 2003) have pointed out that race as a conversation or interview topic is a delicate subject, but little or no discussion of reasons for its delicacy takes place, as if the subject’s delicacy is assumed. As it turns out, race as a subject in conversations is not treated as delicately by nonwhite respondents than by white ones, and there is an obvious reason for this: whites and the institutions they control have more to lose with the occasional gaffe as compared to nonwhites. Thus, when blacks (Bonilla-Silva, 2003) or

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 687

other nonwhite respondents (Bush, 2004) uncover the myriad contradictions in the dominant race discourse (RD), they are more likely to acknowledge and speak to those inconsistencies; in fact, they might even expose the contradictions themselves. In contrast, when whites see contradictions between their stated values and their opposition to various actions to fulfill those values, they utilize certain discursive tools to both rationalize the existing social structure and do so while appearing ‘open-minded’. It is this form of RD, used by whites, that I call white race discourse (WRD).

Bridging the divide: whiteness studies and the white racial frame The way social scientists collect and analyze data is critical in the validity of the knowledge claims we make. Researchers must exercise praxis in their scholarly pursuits; that is, they cannot discuss their methodological approaches separate from our theoretical and/or ideological convictions. Whiteness studies, though still in its early stages of development, has generated enough scholarship to warrant investigation of its progress. An important point to bear in mind is that all whiteness scholars agree with one fundamental goal of their studies: that the findings of whiteness scholars are an essential ingredient to achieving racial inequality. The approach of this study attempts to bridge the divide between two camps within whiteness studies: the ‘constructivist’ camp and the ‘systemic racism’ camp. This section provides the important contributions and limitations of each camp. Based on this analysis, the method of discourse analysis for this study is presented.

The first of two predominant camps of whiteness studies is referred to as the ‘constructivist’ camp, primarily due to its emphasis on the social fact that race is a social construction. Scholars from this camp (e.g. Hartigan, 2000; Van Den Berg, 2003) argue that too often whiteness scholars produce scholarship that further reifies and essentializes whiteness. Some from this camp (Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Billig et al., 1988) fear that discourse analyses like those of Van Dijk (1987) or others from the ‘systemic racism’ camp (e.g. Frankenberg, 1993; McIntyre, 1997) have a tendency to engage in ‘essentialist theorizing’ or ‘produce what was already postulated in advance’ (Van Den Berg, 2003: 123). Thus, those from the ‘systemic racism’ camp espouse a kind of circular logic, meaning they assume that racism exists and therefore must exist, even if a respondent might deny its existence. The evidence must be grounded in the data itself rather than ‘through reference to speculative social and/or cognitive theories’.

Whiteness scholars from the ‘constructivist’ camp also argue that those from the ‘systemic racism’ camp fail to acknowledge the localization of race experience and the importance of context in affecting what we say, when we say it, and how (e.g. Eliasoph, 1999). Bonnett (1997) argues that too often whiteness scholars assume that whiteness is something all whites have, in equal amounts, and always oppress without ever facing oppression. Indeed, intersections of race, class, and gender in race discourse have yet to be examined in great detail. In his

688 Discourse & Society 20(6)

groundbreaking study, Hartigan (1999) conducted interviews of working-class white Detroiters who struggle economically and socially in a situation in which they are a minority in their city, while members of the school board, city officials, and other citizens in leadership positions are predominantly black. The most important contribution of this camp is their willingness to examine and address the variability in experiences and discourse, when too often variability is either ignored or dismissed as a result of measurement error. In fact, this variability is often the result of different variables interacting with each other, such as race, class, and gender.

Despite the validity in its premise, a critical limitation of the ‘constructivist’ camp is the denial of structural factors affecting individual lives. Although indi- vidual variations are important, Bonilla-Silva and Forman (2000) argue that the focus should be on whites as a group, one that receives unfair advantages at the expense of nonwhites in society. In addition, critical discourse analysts such as Van Dijk (1987, 1992, 1993) and Wodak (1996, 2004) provide evidence of the ways whites rationalize white supremacy and defend whiteness through various linguistic techniques.

Meanwhile, the ‘systemic racism’ camp focuses on the role of power and how racial identity places one in a social hierarchy, a social system that favors white over black (Feagin, 2000, 2006). Despite Hartigan’s (1999, 2003) contributions, his assertion that the experience of white Detroiters, making up just 20 percent of the city population, will increase in the future, has yet to be seen. Although the attention to the coming nonwhite majority on the horizon has increased in recent years (particularly from white conservatives nervous about the ‘threat’ the newest immigrants represent to white hegemony, e.g. Buchanan, 2002), this phenomenon is unlikely since whites often change the parameters of whiteness to include more under their tent in order to maintain numerical domination (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). As past studies have found (Gallagher, 2003; Kaplowitz et al., 2003), many whites overestimate the number of blacks in society and in their immediate vicinity.

An example of this propensity to overestimate the numbers of blacks in my research came from Irene, who discussed the significance of racism in con- temporary US society:

Well, the thing is, it’s all in the context of where you live, it’s all based on geography, like in – where I live, in my school, it’s like 80% Hispanics, a:nd 15% African American and 5% white so I’m the minority so as far as, you know, I mean, there’s no, there’s not racial discrimination there, like it’s (1.0) I don’t see it on the news, I don’t see it.

Irene claims that, based on her racial distribution of her high school, dis- crimination no longer exists. Like Hartigan and others from the constructivist camp, the focus on localization of race downplays the social reality that race is a social fact. Even when addressing the status of poor whites such as ‘rednecks’ or ‘hillbillies’, they still profit from their whiteness that blacks and other nonwhites lack (Roediger, 1991; Feagin, 2006).

More recent developments in critical discourse analysis have made significant headway in understanding this discursive phenomenon. For example, the

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 689

discourse-historical analytical approach, as outlined by Reisigl and Wodak (2001), concerns itself with understanding the contradictions within discursive structures. Furthermore, in the critical tradition associated with the Frankfurt School (e.g. Habermas, 1975), this approach (1) understands ‘discourse’ as a method of solidifying and perpetuating the status quo, and (2) works toward exposing and even challenging that status quo (if unjust inequalities exist). This approach has three stages: first, prejudiced discourse is detected; second, discursive strategies of the interlocutors are explored; and third, ‘the linguistic means and the specific context-dependent linguistic realizations of the discriminatory stereotypes are then looked into’ (Wodak and Reisigl, 1999: 188). This approach attempts to avoid the pitfalls of previous critical discursive analyses, such as slipping into essentialism, while avoiding postmoder n relativism.

Reflecting the discourse-historical analytic approach (Riesigl and Wodak, 2001), discourse analysts must provide the necessary background information to effectively ‘ground’ the data and avoid knowledge claims based on assumptions. According to Riesigl and Wodak (2001: 35), this approach ‘attempts to integrate much available knowledge about the historical sources and the background of the social and political fields in which discursive “events” are embedded’. For instance, in her studies of anti-Semitism in Austria, Wodak (1991, 1996, 1997, 2004) contextualizes utterances that, however implicitly, promote positive self- presentation and negative other-presentation. For this study, utterances will be examined with the backdrop of a particular frame, that of the white racial frame, as introduced by Feagin (2006).

Discourse is a product of social action, and agents utilize frames to produce discourse. Originating from the work of Goffman (1974), Tannen (1993) defines frames as ‘patterns of expectation that are socio-culturally determined’ (Van Den Berg, 2003: 120). These frames are ultimately so embedded within our minds that agents are often unaware of them as they make decisions in their everyday lives. Among these frames are images of ‘blackness’ that are in opposition to ‘whiteness’. Frames are both social and cognitive structures (Ensink, 2003). On one hand, individuals have their own mental structures (or habitus; Bourdieu, 1977) that affect the way they interact with others; meanwhile, there are also social structures that impose meanings on the actions of individual agents. With most major social institutions dominated by white Americans, meanings often portray whites more favorably than nonwhites. This combination of structures forms what Feagin (2006: 230) refers to as the ‘white racial frame’, which he claims is the key factor in the reproduction of systemic racism:

Central to the persistence of systemic racism into the present day is the organized set of racialized habits that whites consciously or unconsciously express in their everyday attitudes and actions in US society. These habits include the racialized framing of the social world that most use extensively, a frame that embeds an array of racist stereotypes, images, and emotions that are to a significant degree survivals of centuries-old antiblack and prowhite thinking.

It is this frame that serves as the backdrop for whites as they speak about racial matters. This article examines the important functions contradictions serve

690 Discourse & Society 20(6)

in protecting the white racial frame via discourse: first, they provide white respondents with a method to blame nonwhites for societal problems (e.g. racial tensions) while (seemingly) maintaining an image of nonracism; and second, they protect the status quo despite pointing out particular instances of prejudicial and discriminatory behavior.

To conclude this section, one of the most important contributions from the constructivist camp is the insightful analytic strategies devised by conversation analysts such as Wetherell and Potter (1992) and the edited volume from Van Den Berg et al. (2003). These researchers provide sophisticated techniques for analyzing racetalk. While some researchers from the ‘systemic racism’ camp (e.g. Bonilla-Silva and Forman, 2000) have adopted these strategies, many of these studies (e.g. Feagin and O’Brien, 2003; Bush, 2004) have not. Thus, the approach of this article is to build off the theoretical works of Feagin (2006), Frankenberg (1993), Bonilla-Silva (2001), and others from the systemic racism camp, while adopting analytic practices from the constructivist camp (namely Van Den Berg et al., 2003) and the strategy pioneered by the critical discourse analysts Reisigl and Wodak (2001).

Research design The sample for this study consisted of 30 white undergraduates enrolled in sociology courses attending a historically white university in the southeastern United States. The interviews took place during the fall and spring semesters of 2005–6. Respondents filled out a slip of paper asking for contact information, and those included in this study wrote either ‘white’ or ‘Caucasian’ for their racial identity. Despite some critics that have suggested these studies reify and essentialize whiteness (Andersen, 2003), all respondents interviewed for this study thought of themselves as such; I never assumed they were white. Samples like these are beneficial because young whites are more likely to utilize the covert discursive forms, have more contact with people of color, and likely have greater potential for antiracism than older whites (McKinney and Feagin, 2003).

Interviews were conducted on campus by the author and tape-recorded. In order to recruit respondents, several instructors of sociology courses agreed to offer students extra credit for participation in my study. Instructors made the announcements during class, and passed out slips of paper to volunteers asking for personal and contact information, including their name, race (open- ended: ‘Race: ___’), gender, and year in school. Besides self-identifying as white, respondents were between the ages of 18 and 25 and were of middle-class backgrounds. Most interviews lasted about one-half hour, with a few lasting around 45 minutes.

The interviews were structured in a way that encouraged respondents to recall racial events. Furthermore, this method was used to begin a discussion of broader racial issues in US society. Respondents were handed slips of paper, each with different sets of statements concerning various racial issues, such as interracial relationships, racial experiences on campus, ways to achieve racial equality, and emotions associated with various experiences involving race.

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 691

The final section asked students to recall a racial situation in which they had a dilemma and needed to make a quick decision. The aim of this method is to pro- vide respondents with an opportunity to produce narratives about past racial experiences.

Qualitative researchers have argued that social scientists should not only analyze what people say, but how they say it and in what context an utterance was delivered (Gubrium and Holstein, 1997). Following pioneering works in the field of whiteness studies (e.g. Frankenberg, 1993), analyses since have often lacked the sophisticated methods of discourse analysis. For this study, a coding strategy from Van Den Berg et al. (2003) was adopted. This strategy is useful for discourse analysis because it gets deeper into the textuality of discourse, and brings to light the ways interviewer responses influence that of the respondents. For example, in the following exchange with Kaitlin, observe the series of ‘mhm’s and its potential effect on her utterances:

R: Um, actually one of my roommates is black, and one of them is Spanish, and then my actual roommate because I live in [name of dorm] is um, is white, she’s the one who actually lives in my room. I: Mhm. R: Yeah, I get kind of angry and I don’t blame it on the fact that (.) she’s black but she like always has all of her friends over and they’re really loud I: Mhm R: And sometimes I want to say that ‘black people are really loud’ like but I know that’s not it I: Mhm↓ R: But I just like (.) sometimes I want to blame it on that. but

In this excerpt, the interviewer first delivers a ‘mhm.’ with the ‘.’ indicating a falling intonation, which suggests his wish for her to continue following her descriptive information of her roommates. The second ‘mhm’ does not have a falling intonation, which suggests the interviewer could have been responding to her recount of a ‘problem’ caused by her black roommate. Despite the difference between the two, both tend to serve the same backchannelling function. Com- pared to the others, however, the third ‘mhm↓’ suggests my displeasure towards her semantic move ‘And sometimes I want to say that “black people are really loud” like but I know that’s not it’. Although in this particular response the ‘mhm↓’ did not seem to faze her (she merely reiterated her point), she might have been influenced by the response of the interviewer.

Functions of contradictions in white race discourse IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: PLACING THE ONUS ON BLACKS Defending the white racial frame can be risky business. Very few whites, including those who are members of overtly white supremacist organizations (e.g. David Duke), are willing to label themselves a ‘racist’ within a front-stage setting. Thus, a delicate balancing act must be performed in order to rationalize a social system’s practices or an individual’s actions that are discriminatory while presenting an image of nonracism.

692 Discourse & Society 20(6)

Rather than viewing contradictory statements as dysfunctional, in this form of discourse they enable the speaker to, among other things, integrate incompatible frames or repertoires, switch frames, and construct a convincing argument (Van Den Berg, 2003). Moreover, these functions all become ration- alizations of the status quo, whether an intended consequence or not. In addition, they can all serve as face-saving devices for the speaker. If they think that respondents engage in impression management for an individual, that is too limited a scope; impression management could also serve the social structure, as well as for individuals, whether for that immediate individual speaker or for other whites as well, such as intimate whites defending a bigoted grandfather, saying ‘well, he’s a good guy; he grew up in a different time’, while stating that ‘people are more open-minded nowadays’.

One common method in the face maintenance of themselves and fellow whites is to label blacks as ‘strange’, ‘weird’, or even threatening. This method does two things: first, it allows whites to distance themselves from social respon- sibility for racial problems; and second, it places that responsibility squarely on blacks. Since most whites have little contact with blacks in their everyday lives growing up, there is often confusion and miscommunication during interracial encounters, usually due to the misrepresentations of the black experience. Some- times respondents reported experiences with black roommates that had caused unpleasant moments. For example, Mandy spoke of one roommate she had the previous summer:

R: Um (1.0) I mean our problems weren’t over race our problems were more like little stuff like she turned the air-conditioning off. I: Oh R: (laughs) and um she didn’t do, she did weave in the room too, so I guess that’s a cultural thing but (.) she was a little more messy so there were clumps of hai↑r that I found there and (outbreath laugh) grease on the doors so you can’t ope(h)n the doorknob? But I mean (.) it was nothing like (.) hatred you know

In this passage, Mandy was responding to the statement asking for recent inter- actions with blacks on campus. This statement followed one which asked to recall any experiences of tension in her dormitory or apartment building, which might explain why she continued to think of instances of tension with black Americans; still, the reason why she continues to frame her interactions with blacks in this way is intriguing. After stating that her problems with her roommate were not racial (note the usage of the pronoun our to make the misunderstandings appear equally shared), while mentioning an example of something unrelated to race (turning the air conditioner off), she does mention the example of hair weaving that is related to race, and even admits it (‘so I guess that’s a cultural thing’). Despite her addition of the invariable ‘but’ here to insert a semantic move, she adds another point of contention against her black roommate for being ‘a little more messy’ (note the diminutive ‘little’ here to soften the charge). Then she completes the semantic move to protect her self-image by saying ‘it was nothing like (.) hatred you know’. Even if taken at face value that they did not hate each

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 693

other (or at least that Mandy did not hate her roommate), she nonetheless expresses some contempt for her roommate’s actions.

Since white Americans have few meaningful interactions with blacks, their images of African Americans often come from hearsay from fellow whites. Elizabeth mentions an example of white girls’ misunderstanding (and disdain) for hair weaving in the dorms. Mentioning this in response to the tension statement, she recalls a white friend’s experience with a black roommate:

Um, well not for me but for another friend of mine, she doesn’t live in my dorm um, she and her roommate like, she’s umm (.) like white and her roommate’s black

and (.) like just in like (.) different like grooming things like her roommate has a weave or something like that and so like the hair glue and all that stuff is around and (.) she thinks that’s weird but that’s okay, like she’s okay with it, but it’s different, so that’s the only thing I can think of really.

After failing to mention instances of tension in her own dormitory, she mentions this example, yet adds that her white friend is ‘okay with it’. So why then would there be any tension to report? Unless she was trying to satisfy the interviewer with a response, it sounds as if she was shielding her white friend’s image by saying ‘but it’s different’, while calling the practice of hair weaving ‘weird’, to legitimize the agitated feelings of her roommate.

On a different subject, Kaitlin spoke of her black roommate and the ‘weird’ activities she and her friends (assumed here to be black, though Kaitlin does not explicitly mention this) did while in the room:

I: Like what kinds of things do they like to do, like this is on the weekends? R: No, like all the time (laughs) they’re over there, and they just do stuff that (.) I don’t do, like they move the table and like da:nce in the middle of our room I: Right. R: Which I would never do with my frie(h)nds I: Like listen to music? R: Yeah, like rap which doesn’t bother me like listening to rap music but I just find it kind of weird ’cause I wouldn’t have my friends over and like breakdance all over my living room like they do (laughs) I: Oh. What do you like to do like do you have friends come over to your dorm? R: Mm mhm↑. And we like play cards and watch movies and sometimes they watch t.v. with us together and stuff like that (.) it’s not that (.) I don’t like them or anything, it’s just that it gets loud sometimes. I: Do you guys ever like go out together like to parties or clubs or R: Not really. We invited them (.) me and my roommate invited them one time to see a movie and they (.) already had plans or something, but yeah not really, we hang out in the room together but not really outside of that.

During this exchange, the author did better than usual at challenging the respondent’s remarks: first, by challenging her assertion that her black roommate and friends were ‘weird’ due to their listening to music together; and second, by asking her to provide evidence of her roommate’s strangeness. She replied that they listened to rap, a kind of contemporary popular music consumed by white

694 Discourse & Society 20(6)

and black youths alike. Also note how she went from ‘da:nce in the middle of our room’ to ‘breakdance all over my living room’, in which ‘breakdance’ here is a use of absurdity (Antaki, 2003) to solidify a point she is trying to make; meanwhile, she uses the possessive pronoun ‘my’ as though ‘they’ have invaded her private space, despite the fact that her roommate lives there, too. She then provides ‘evidence’ in how different she and her (white) friends are (considering the fact they often watch movies together in the room), and includes a semantic move to insist that she still likes them. Finally, Kaitlin mentions how little time they spend together outside of the dorm room.

In a similar vein, Linda complained of two black girls who live on her floor:

I: Like have you (.) witnessed or heard about any kind of tensions or anything? R: No, I mean well there’s (.) these two girls who are really lou:d and they listen to really loud music but I think I: Mhm. R: I don’t think people (.) get annoyed with them because of like the fact that they’re like black, I think it’s just an- they’re annoyed because they play loud music, you know so but I mean for the most part everything’s fine.

Note here her noun ‘people’ to distance herself from the annoyance. There are two important points that suggest the difficulties associated with declining antiblack attitudes of whites via beneficial contact (e.g. roommates on college campuses). First is the issue of imagined racial differences to provide an excuse for racial segregation. Although some important differences remain unacknowledged or misunderstood by whites, there are plenty of similarities that black and white Americans can identify with. Second, interaction with blacks occurs only when whites are forced to do so; in this case, due to the result of being roommates.

In addition to being labeled ‘weird’ by respondents, blacks were also blamed for segregation in US society. Respondents commonly replied to the statement ‘I recall an experience involving some racial tension in my dormitory or apartment building’ by equating racial diversity with tense situations, and in particular people of color creating the tense situations. Often, respondents accused blacks of initiating conflict. For example, Yannie recalled a situation in which his black friend visited him at his dormitory:

Over the summer, [he] came into the dorm and I live in [name] so it’s (.) predominantly white it seems, um (.) and actually (.) interestingly enough, he caused the tension? But my black friend walked in and uhm sat down and talk to some of these people, and they were talking about the group that’s for salutatorians and valedictorians only? And he mentioned him being in the group, and the girl turns to him and was like ‘you’re salutatorian?’ and he’s like ‘what? Surprises you that there’s a black salutatorian?’ So, he just kind of blamed [her] for that, and attacked her and she didn’t mean anything along those lines by it, and he was partially kidding? Because it’s just how he acts, but it like caused some tension? Um (.) ’cause he, he doesn’t relent, that’s how he acts, so it actually resulted in um (2.0) uh, and the thing was really surprising is the girl was uh actually Asian, so she wasn’t exactly (.) a majority either, so that I guess that was the interesting part of it, but there was tension, he (.) did get in trouble, they reported to the R.A.s, so (.) I guess like even jokingly it led to problems?

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 695

In this situation, Yannie failed to see how the girl’s question could have insulted his friend, while assuming that only white Americans are capable of racism. Yannie immediately defended the girl, saying ‘she didn’t mean anything along those lines by it’, yet why would she ask the question in the first place? Is there any reason to believe that someone would lie about being a salutatorian? One finding here is that whites can defend ‘borderline’ whites as well as fellow whites. More importantly, Yannie uses this situation to describe his black friend’s personality in that he is relentless and a troublemaker, so much so that the people there at the time notified the resident assistants about his presence.

Another instance of blaming black Americans for the inability to integrate US society was the absurd notion that blacks choose segregation, often the result of ‘black pride’. For example, Wanda spoke of black girls living on her floor in her dormitory:

They act different, like you can hear outside their doors like loud rap music, like you know (.) who’s (laugh) which room is (.) but there’s no tension on the floor, I mean, they don’t- actually, there’s no tension, but they’re not like (.) as friendly as- I guess they feel that like there’s only two or three on like a floor of like 30 (.) people? So I guess they are like major like minorities, so they don’t like (.) even (.) like feel the need or want to get along with everybody? Not like just like they don’t wanna be like friends, it’s not like they don’t want to have (.) it’s not that they want to have like problems with people, they just don’t choose to be friends with everyone?

Again, there is the association made between black people and loud rap music. Despite Wanda’s initial statement that no tension exists on her floor, she contradicts herself when she says that the black girls are ‘not like (.) as friendly as-’ (note how she does not complete the statement). She places the responsibility of the girls making friends with whites squarely on their shoulders.

Meanwhile, ‘black pride’ was also cited as a cause of racial conflict, albeit indirectly. Betty speaks of her ‘best friend’, whom she met this semester, and reasons why tense moments do not exist:

And she’s really awesome, and uh if you get her to talk about like just black pride in general, she can go off for hours on it, and uh it’s not a bad thing, but um she does like realize that (.) she doesn’t feel like necessarily discriminated against on campus, even though the campus is majority white from what we can see, and uh she doesn’t feel discriminated against, she feels like she gets along with everybody, and

but uh I think she’s well-adjusted, and I enjoy her company (laugh)

Betty fails to complete the semantic move ‘it’s not a bad thing, but’ in reference to her friend’s ‘black pride’. She conceptualizes ‘black pride’ as ‘feeling discriminated against’ and not getting along with everybody. Hence, if black Americans would only stop complaining about experiencing discrimination would they then cease being discriminated against, be ‘well-adjusted’ and then whites could ‘enjoy their company’?

Some respondents equated ‘being black’ with being hostile or unfriendly. For instance, Wanda described black kids at her high school:

R: There was always tension between um they would just like turn over lunch tables and sit on top of them and like (.) just be loud (.) I, I was friends

696 Discourse & Society 20(6)

with them, so (.) there was separation, I guess they felt that like (.) they were (.) like black, and they didn’t really hang out with whites, they kind of like made fun of us, so (.) I: Was the tension a pretty common occurrence, or was it um can you think of like a specific time or instance? R: Yeah, there hasn’t been like fights in school or there haven’t like (.) black person against a white person, but there has been at my school, but it wasn’t like people would like walk by and be like ‘you know, I don’t like them,’ it was just certain people like, for the most part, they wanted to like °be black°, that’s what they wanted to do, and it’s not like the white people didn’t like black people, they just felt like they had to like live up to their standard of being like a black person who would like dress a

certain way or like act a certain way, especially (.)

Wanda typifies ‘being black’ as not liking white people, though she insists that whites do not have a problem with them. She believes that blacks choose to segregate themselves from whites in society.

These examples of labeling blacks as ‘weird’ or threatening serve respondents well as a method of face maintenance. When framing the issue in such a way, they can avoid any direct contribution to the segregated spaces in US society.

PRESERVING WHITE SUPREMACY: SELECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS OF RACE Impression management does not have to be solely for the purpose of protecting one’s own image: depending on the context at hand, people engage in impression management of their group position and, in turn, the institutions that make those positions possible. Built within the habitus is the ability to shift gears in one’s status with the superstructure of society. This ability causes myriad con- tradictions to appear, depending on the context and social setting in which one is speaking. On one hand, the blurring of the line between oneself and the superstructure serves the function of maintaining the status of that super- structure; on the other hand, pressure to address structural concerns leads whites to distance themselves with the superstructure in management of their own faces. This is the way hegemonic power is reproduced, i.e. protecting white privilege. In other words, speakers employ synecdoches (a word to equate an individual with a group, or vice-versa) or metonymies (a country equated with the population of that country) in order to exclude nonwhites (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001: 108–9), while distancing oneself when group members ‘cross the line’ into covert racism. One method is utilizing the analogy of ‘a few bad apples’ when fellow whites ‘get caught’ saying or doing racist things; yet when feeling one’s face threatened, a distancing act takes place between one’s own position and that of another (such as using impersonal pronouns; see Reisigl and Wodak, 2001: 110).

Do individual whites make the distinction between themselves and the social system, and if so, when? Members of a privileged class may not differentiate themselves from the structure because, in a sense, they are the structure (or at least its creators). When a problem occurs, e.g. if there is a conflict between the interests of people and those of the mechanics of the system designed (at least initially), then individuals may attempt to distance themselves from the structure. But the distance act may occur with fellow whites as well: if a problem occurs,

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 697

such as the recent investigations of political corruption in Congress, then indi- vidual whites are labeled, particularly by members of the institution who fear a public backlash, as ‘a few bad apples’. However, following the botched govern- ment response to Hurricane Katrina, with so many individual whites in power, the focus shifts onto reified bureaucratic mechanisms that were too inefficient or too cumbersome for individuals to act adequately to the situation. Only then do we hear calls for structural inadequacies to be addressed.

Do the agents feel separated from the social structure? Do they see the dif- ference? Generally no, because is there really a need for white Americans to differentiate themselves from the structure? It is a structure they benefit from, despite gender, social class, or other differences between them. Since they have a stake in the survival of the structure, they do not generally want to see any changes, so how can one best defend that structure? A rationalization process is needed to legitimize the existence of that structure. One method to do this is to make it invisible: if a structure does not exist, it would be pointless to talk about it, much less allocate societal resources to change it. Contradictions in this context serve as face-saving devices, whether for structures, agents, or for both when a distinction fails to have been made between the two. It should not be thought that white Americans are individualistic; it should instead be understood that individualism has more often served their needs in preserving their hegemonic power, both nationally and globally. Yet once the need arises, that individualism will be replaced with structural explanations in the defense of whiteness.

Although many whites will claim color-blindness when addressing racial matters, in reality they will selectively acknowledge racial differences, particularly when the matter at hand involves the defense of white privilege (Lewis, 2003). Many respondents were ambivalent when addressing the statement: ‘I can recall a situation or interaction that later made me think about my whiteness.’ For example, Casey began his interview this way:

R: I gotta think about it for a second. I: Okay↑ (2.0) Which one are you thinkin’ about? R: The first one. ((‘Some people have certain advantages, based on their racial identity, that others don’t have in this society.’)) I: Okay. R: (4.0) I do, I think some people have a certain edge in education of racial identity, that others don’t have. I: How so? R: I think, like, people look at you differently when you’re white, like, if you go for a jo- like as sad as it sounds, like, I know from like, like experience, like I think if you’re white it helps, like ’cause I know some people are still like, have a lot of stereotypes that are still ingrained in their mind and they can’t get rid of it, ’cause it’s been passed down from generation and generation but like, I don’t think that’s fair, ’cause like, I can see past all that, so I mean (1.0) just like Huck Finn, for example, it’s so ingrained in his mind he can’t see past it.

After this first exchange, Casey appears to (1) recognize a concrete instance of the way blacks are at a disadvantage in the workforce due to lingering antiblack

698 Discourse & Society 20(6)

stereotypes, and (2) distance himself from those stereotypes. Moreover, his reference to Huckleberry Finn was used to associate himself with Mark Twain’s fictional character. However, immediately following this exchange, I ask him about whiteness in his life:

I: Yeah. (3.0) How about the second one ((‘I can recall a situation or interaction that later made me think about my whiteness.’)), like um, what would whiteness like, in your life personally, how has whiteness affected your life? R: Umm, I don’t really think about it to tell you the truth. I don’t think it really matters. It’s only [what] a person says who they are. I don’t think, I don’t really

think about my color. (1.0) if that makes sense, I don’t know. I: Like how would you define whiteness? R: Just the color of your ski(h)n. I: The color of skin? R: Yeah. That’s all I see it as.

Casey contradicted his previous statement by asserting that whiteness is nothing more than skin color, and does not matter in life (or at least his own). How can someone shift from race-conscious statements to classic color-blind state- ments? Almost like a machine, Casey utters these statements, and then appears dissatisfied with their legitimacy. This excerpt resembles efficiency, with a color- blind statement (‘It’s only [what] a person says who they are’) followed by an ignorance claim (‘If that makes sense, I don’t know’). Excerpts like these provide evidence that the house of whiteness is built upon a weak foundation, as he questions the reasoning behind the sequence of utterances he delivers.

In Casey’s statements, he stated that whiteness was not an issue, despite noticing a particular instance in how people of color are detrimentally affected by antiblack prejudice (which is perpetuated by superior notions of whiteness). In George’s response, he not only cites an example of the way people of color suffer from white racism but also provides an example of whiteness having an impact on his life experiences, yet still expresses ambivalence towards the concept. He first responds to ‘Some people have certain advantages, based on their racial identity, that others don’t have in this society’ this way:

R: Um, I think that’s (.) probably true uh because I’ve had uh a couple of friends uh (.) one uh in middle school, I had a uh, a friend that was from uh (.) Panama I: Mm R: And they, they were actually twins and uh, they were mainly black and so uh I noticed that uh like just one of my teachers didn’t like them and I thought it was mainly because of their race um and so I don’t know, because they were really bright kids and so that’s just one instance where I’ve seen that from an early age, that was in middle school I believe, and I: Like can you recall maybe any specific things that went on with the teacher? R: Well, it was anywhere from reactions on papers, like writing papers, to little comments in class. Like uh (.) I felt like it was really unnecessary so it was I: Like what kinds of comments I mean, you guys had class discussions? R: Yeah, exactly. And um what made it stick out was that they were the only

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 699

two black kids in the class and so (.) anything that they would say she would kind of undermine it. So, I don’t know, I can’t think of any specific examples.

Despite his professed inability to recall specific instances, he recalled his experi- ence in middle school with clarity, in which two classmates received differential treatment by their teacher because ‘they were mainly black’. He then completes this exchange with an ignorance statement, despite just mentioning such an example. Also note his use of the diminutive ‘just’ to limit the charge of racism to one of their teachers. But then he addresses the statement on whiteness in this manner:

I: What role, you know, if any has whiteness played in your life? R: Um the only situation I can think is uh probably participating in events such as like when I was younger I participated in little things such as golf, little golf things where uh everybody would get together and teach you how to golf and just let you like into that (.) like good ole boy club, so to speak so, I don’t know. I: Yeah. R: Other than that, that’s about as much experience as I’ve had with that uh I can’t really recall anything that’s made me feel white.

In this exchange, he recognized that playing golf is – and largely remains – a recreational activity for affluent white males, and also how such recreational activities help their participants establish social networks. However, he then delivers an ambivalent statement that rivals that of Casey’s. This example appears as if he backed off, having given too much acknowledgment to the reality of whiteness as a social force.

Discussion In this article, evidence has been presented that the contradictions displayed by this group of white Americans aid them in their attempt to maintain face while rationalizing a separate and unequal social system that privileges whites at the expense of nonwhite Americans. Thus, they exercise a discursive method that preserves the white racial frame, albeit in an indirect way. Similar to loyal bureaucrats of an organization, they engage in impression management for the institutions that provide whites their privileges, while in turn those institutions speak glowingly of the ‘lily white’, which is often defined and affirmed through the defined inferiority of the nonwhite Other. In addition, individual whites also speak for (and defend) themselves, as well as for fellow whites whose face may be threatened. The way they speak in a particular social context depends on their relationship to the issue personally, the structure, and other white Americans.

However, this nonracism and optimism is only skin-deep. In reality, they go out of their way to disbelieve the prevalence of white racism. They do this be- cause they refuse to take any responsibility for contemporary race problems. Based on the findings, this sample of whites is at best ambivalent of, and at worst supportive of, whiteness and the social mechanisms that defend it. First, as a tool of impression management, they claim to have little or no problems with black

700 Discourse & Society 20(6)

Americans, yet they (however implicitly) blame blacks for the prevalence of segregated social spaces in US society. Second, instances of respondents failing to connect the dots between instances of systemic racism and the prevalence of white supremacy in US society were presented. Yet they wish to say these things without coming across as ‘white supremacist’. How can they succeed in such an endeavor?

In order to pull off such a conundrum, they employ a sophisticated discursive strategy that defends white supremacy while simultaneously attempting to come across as not defending it. This form of racetalk provides evidence that this group of young whites have developed a kind of bureaucratized model of discourse that provides them with various discursive tools at their disposal. For example, respondents often spoke in general terms about black Americans – and stripping them of agency – while rarely doing so when speaking of white Americans. Additionally, they utilized diminutives as a strategy to downplay the significance of racism in US society, such as the damage caused by telling a racist joke. Furthermore, members of the sample routinely used semantic moves to present a favorable image of themselves while making a potentially face-threatening statement.

Not all respondents were in unison with their repertoires, however: there were occasions of respondents who did not always use the methods associated with WRD. One example includes the Jewish respondents who strongly disapproved of protecting the rights of white supremacist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, to organize and speak freely. An important caveat to this side issue is that the opposition appeared to be the result, at least in part, of direct experiences with anti-Semitc groups (a phenomenon to be addressed in a future study). Moreover, Renee was supportive of affirmative action, and dis- played no hints of uncertainty in her opinion. However, these examples were clear and unadulterated exceptions. The race discourse of these white Americans represents a bureaucratized form that puts them at odds with any measures intended to eliminate systemic white racism in US society. As recent works have found (Picca and Feagin, 2007), the perception of young whites today as more open-minded than their parents is false. In fact, these young people are products of the post-Civil Rights Movement retrogression, living in a white bubble.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

The author is indebted to Hernán Vera, Joe Feagin, Barbara Zsembik, Connie Shehan, and Katheryn Russell-Brown for comments on an earlier version of this article. The author also thanks the blind reviewers for their comments and suggestions for revisions.

N O T E

1. ‘Quality’ here means beneficial contact, based on the work of Allport (1954) and Forbes (1997), who argue that the relationship must be approved of by authority figures (e.g. parents), they must have equal social status, and be in a situation of cooperation, not conflict.

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 701

R E F E R E N C E S

Allport, G.W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Andersen, M.L. (2003) ‘Whitewashing Race: A Critical Perspective on Whiteness’, in

A.W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva (eds) White Out: The Continuing Significance of Race, pp. 21–34. New York: Routledge.

Antaki, C. (2003) ‘The Uses of Absurdity’, in H. Van Den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds) Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview, pp. 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D.J. and Radley, A.R. (1988) Ideological Dilemmas. London: Sage.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001) White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003) Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Bonilla-Silva, E. and Forman, T.A. (2000) ‘“I am not a Racist but . . .”: Mapping White College Students’ Racial Ideology in the USA’, Discourse & Society 11(1): 50–85.

Bonnett, A. (1997) ‘Antiracism and the Critique of “White” Identities’, New Communities 22(1): 97–110.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buchanan, P.J. (2002) The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. New York: Thomas Dunne.

Bush, M.E.L. (2004) Breaking the Code of Good Intentions: Everyday Forms of Whiteness. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Eliasoph, N. (1999) ‘“Everyday Racism” in a Culture of Political Avoidance: Civil Society, Speech, and Taboo’, Social Problems 46(4): 479–502.

Ensink, T. (2003) ‘The Frame Analysis of Research Interviews: Social Categorization and Footing in Interview Discourse’, in H. Van Den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop- Steenstra (eds) Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview, pp. 156–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feagin, J.R. (2000) Racist America. New York: Routledge. Feagin, J.R. (2006) Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York: Routledge. Feagin, J.R. and O’Brien, E. (2003) White Men on Race: Power, Privilege, and the Shaping of

Cultural Consciousness. Boston: Beacon Press. Forbes, H.D. (1997) Ethnic Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Frankenberg, R. (1993) The Social Construction of Whiteness: White Women, Race Matters.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Gallagher, C.A. (2003) ‘Miscounting Race: Explaining Whites’ Misperceptions of Racial

Group Size’, Sociological Perspectives 46(3): 381–96. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (1997) The New Language of Qualitative Method. New York:

Oxford University Press. Habermas, J. (1975) Legitimation Crisis (trans. Thomas McCar thy). Boston, MA:

Beacon Press. Hartigan, Jr., J. (1999) Racial Situations: Class Predicaments of Whiteness in Detroit.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hartigan, Jr., J. (2000) ‘Object Lessons in Whiteness: Antiracism and the Study of White

Folks’, Identities 7(3): 373–406.

702 Discourse & Society 20(6)

Hartigan, Jr., J. (2003) ‘Who are these White People?: “Rednecks”, “Hillbillies”, and “White Trash” as Marked Racial Subjects’, in A.W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva (eds) White Out: The Continuing Significance of Race, pp. 95–122. New York: Routledge.

Kaplowitz, S.A., Fisher, B.J. and Broman, C.L. (2003) ‘How Accurate are Perceptions of Social Statistics about Blacks and Whites? Public Opinion Quarterly 67(2): 237–44.

Lewis, A.E. (2003) ‘Some Are More Equal Than Others: Lessons on Whiteness from School’, in A.W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva (eds) White Out: The Continuing Significance of Race, pp. 159–72. New York: Routledge.

McIntyre, A. (1997) Making Meaning of Whiteness: Exploring Racial Identity with White Teachers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

McKinney, K. and Feagin, J.R. (2003) ‘Diverse Perspectives on Doing Antiracism: The Younger Generation’, in A.W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva (eds) White Out: The Continuing Significance of Race, pp. 233–51. New York: Routledge.

Picca, L.H. and Feagin, J.R. (2007) Two-Faced Racism: Whites in the Backstage and Frontstage. New York: Routledge.

Pomerantz, A. and Zemel, A. (2003) ‘Perspectives and Frameworks in Interviewers’ Queries’, in H. Van Den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds) Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview, pp. 215–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behavior. London: Sage.

Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.

Roediger, D. (1991) The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Middle Class. New York: Verso.

Tannen, D. (1993) ‘What’s in a Frame?’, in D. Tannen (ed.) Framing in Discourse, pp. 14–55. New York: Oxford University Press.

Van Den Berg, H. (2003) ‘Contradictions in Interview Discourse’, in H. Van Den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds) Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview, pp. 119–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Den Berg, H., Wetherell, M. and Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (eds) (2003) Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1987) Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1992) ‘Discourse and the Denial of Racism’, Discourse & Society 3(1): 87–118.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1993) Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage. Wetherell, M. (2003) ‘Racism and the Analysis of Cultural Resources in Interviews’,

in H. Van Den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds) Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview, pp. 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the Language of Racism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wodak, R. (1991) ‘Turning the Tables: Antisemitic Discourse in Post-War Austria’, Discourse & Society 2(1): 65–83.

Wodak, R. (1996) ‘The Genesis of Racist Discourse in Austria since 1989’, in C. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds) Texts and Practices, pp. 107–28. London: Routledge.

Foster: Defending whiteness indirectly 703

Wodak, R. (1997) ‘Das Ausland and Anti-Semitic Discourse: The Discursive Construction of the Other’, in S.H. Riggins (ed.) The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, pp. 65–87. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wodak, R. (2004) ‘Discourses of Silence: Anti-Semitic Discourse in Post-War Austria’, in L.J. Thiesmeyer (ed.) Discourse and Silencing: Representation and the Language of Displacement, pp. 179–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wodak, R. and Reisigl, M. (1999) ‘Discourse and Racism: European Perspectives’, Annual Review of Anthropology 28: 175–99.

J O H N D . F O S T E R is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. His paper written with Ana S.Q. Liberato, Guillermo Rebollo-Gil and Amanda Moras titled ‘Latinidad and Masculinidad in Hollywood Scripts’ appeared in Ethnic and Racial Studies (July 2009). He is currently working on a book tentatively titled Optimistic Robots: Contradictions within the Race Discourse of White College Students. A D D R E S S : Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Mail Slot 4988, 1200 N. University Drive, Pine Bluff, AR 71601, USA. [email: [email protected]]