The (dis)similarities of white racial identities: the conceptual framework of ‘hegemonic whiteness’

Abstract

This article examines the processes of white racial identity formation in the United States via an examination of a white nationalist organization and a white antiracist organization. Findings indicate that the construction of white racial identity in both groups is based on the reproduction of various racist and essentialist ideologies. The realization that there is a shared ‘groupness’ to outwardly different white identities has the potential to destabilize the recent trend that over-emphasizes white heterogeneity at the expense of discussion of power, racism and discrimination. As a resolution to this analytic dilemma, this article advances a conceptual framework entitled ‘hegemonic whiteness’. White identity formation is thereby understood as a cultural process in which (1) racist, reactionary and essentialist ideologies are used to demarcate inter-racial boundaries, and (2) performances of white racial identity that fail to meet those ideals are marginalized and stigmatized, thereby creating intra-racial distinctions within the category ‘white’.

Keywords:

• White racial identity
• ideology
• white supremacy
• antiracism
• hegemony
• racism

Notes

1. These claims are advanced with the awareness that the ethnographic case studies are atypical in relation to ‘mainstream’ performances of US white racial identity. Yet, outlined herein, the predominant use of similar scripts and schema by ‘mainstream’ whites certainly gestures toward a generalizable applicability of this framework. For more on how larger networks of frame repertoires elevate individual guilt over collective responsibility and how claims to victimized status become the basis for moral and political movements, see Young (1990) and Brown (1995).

2. The two groups studied were male-dominated (I was able to interview forty-five members of both organizations combined, forty-two of whom were men – 93 per cent). By analysing white men's discourse and behaviours, I am afforded access to the ‘seat of power’ within whiteness. This highlights the historically shared claims to power between men and whites. By focusing on reconstructions of white masculinity in a white nationalist and a white antiracist organization in our contemporary era, it was painfully obvious that the three female members within these two organizations were constantly marginalized and were disallowed leadership responsibilities. The intersection between hegemonic ideals of whiteness and patriarchy was illuminated by such practices.

3. From May 2006 to June 2007 I spent at least one day a week with members of either NEA or WRJ, or both. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval dictated that all potentially identifying information had to be changed and replaced with pseudonyms. In order to illuminate cultural processes at work, I triangulated both the data and methods via: (1) ethnographic fieldwork (I attended their meetings: 58 meetings in total; n=31 with NEA, n=27 with WRJ), (2) semi-structured in-depth interviews with members (n=45), and (3) content analysis inclusive of newsletter issues (n=7), flyers (n=22) and any textual information such as emails and office memos (n=467). My relationship with the group was that of a known participant researcher and all members consented to my presence.