On whiteness Studies: Hope and Futurity

From its inception: Whiteness

Many acknowledge W. E. B. DuBois (1903/1989) as a foreparent in conceptualizing Whiteness. Though the exact term “Whiteness” may not have been employed at his time, DuBois’s idea of “the Veil” alludes to it. For much like the veil, Whiteness is forever suffocating Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC).¹ DuBois (1903/1989) testifies to this shadow at the birth of his son:

And thus in the Land of the Color-line I saw, as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil. Within the Veil he was born, said I, and there within it shall he live, – a Negro and a Negro’s son. […] – ah, bitterly! – the unbowed pride of a hunted race, clinging with that tiny dimpled hand – ah, wearily! – to a hope not hopeless but unhopeful, and seeing with those bright wondering eyes that peer into my soul a land whose freedom is to us a mockery and whose liberty a lie. I saw the shadow of the Veil as it passed over my baby […] and stilled with an even-song the unvoiced terror of my life (p.170).

Such reality mirrors how parents of color, particularly Black parents, of today must wrestle with the dialectics of loving their children amidst the racial reality of White supremacy, racial prejudice, police brutality, and surveillance. It is, as DuBois so poetically writes, “the Land of the Color-line…as it fell across my baby, the shadow of the Veil” (p. 170). Meaning, we love our children, desiring a life of freedom and happiness for them, yet must do so under the constraints of the veil, qua Whiteness, that dehumanizes them. And, as DuBois suggests, such freedom can only exist when we “Sleep, then, child,–sleep till I sleep…–above the Veil” (p. 175). Sadly, much like the permanence of race per Bell (1992), Whiteness is until death does we part.

I am purposeful when engaging DuBois’s scholarship for many reasons. Firstly, he is so often cited as one of the founding parents of Whiteness studies, yet within that recognition, his work is rarely deeply engaged. Alongside DuBois, faint propers are sometimes given to James Baldwin (2008), Toni Morrison (1994), or more contemporary Whiteness scholars like Zeus Leonardo (2009). But even in these slight recognitions, a mere cite is not tantamount to actually engaging with the scholarship that these scholars of color bring to the table. Thus, to pay homage to a sect of the field that does not falsely presume its origins stem from Peggy McIntosh’s (1988) knapsack work or White teacher identity, I strategically begin with DuBois. Secondly, DuBois’ poetic prose and vulnerability serve as a reminder of why we came to this work in the first place. That we, as educational race researchers, do this scholarship because we are passionate about changing how education treats students of color, teachers of color, and people of color writ large is not contested. But what is not understood is that for many authors within this special issue and beyond, our dedication to this scholarship is so much more. It is not about a mere citation more so than it is about our lives and the lives of our melanated children. In bearing witness to DuBois’ vulnerability and trauma we learn how the veil, ergo Whiteness, operates, how it impacts us so deeply, and, most importantly, that the study of Whiteness was never about them more so than it was about us. Particularly, the pain and trauma we endure upon Whiteness expressed. This is not to say that our pain and trauma is some type of trauma porn used simply for the viewing consumption of Whites, hoping that they’ll finally get it. Instead, our personal tie to this trauma, terror, and pain of Whiteness is what motivates us to do better. So, regarding the momentary racial epiphanies of a few White teachers we care not. Indeed we need something more substantial.

Towards a Black Whiteness studies

In the ever-expanding field of Whiteness studies and its theoretical approaches like critical Whiteness studies (CWS), this special issue is aimed exactly at how BIPOC scholars approach Whiteness studies or, more specifically, engage with CWS (see Matias, 2022; Matias & Boucher, 2021). This is important for two main reasons. First, as Leonardo (2013) cogently argues, “Whites do not live with a veil other than the proverbial protective White sheet that produces forms of color-blindness and an opaque grasp of the racial formation” (p. 96). As such, how can those who are privileged by a White racial power structure expect to lead racial justice without the engagement of BIPOC? Clearly, as Leonardo (2013) suggests, CWS that centers Whiteness is nothing but White industry, another mechanism that puts “Whiteness on trial without indicting White people as individual embodiments of an ideology of Whiteness” (p. 89). With respect to Bonilla-Silva (2006), this only leads back to the quandary of how can there be “racism without racists”? Someone must be indicted.

Second, too often newcomers to the field or naysayers from afar presume that Whiteness studies are a monolith, specifically employed to engage in the racial emancipation of Whites. Yet, that is not true. With this line of misunderstanding the scholarship of Whiteness scholars, particularly, BIPOC Whiteness scholars, that goes beyond White teachers’ racial awareness gets overlooked. To be clear, beyond the first or second wave of Whiteness studies so captured by Jupp and Lensmire (2016), I argue Whiteness studies has, “since the birth of this nation, been one long wave that continuously crashes on the lives of Black, Indigenous, People of Color” (Matias, 2022, p. 2). This is not to say there is nothing meritorious here. Indeed, I admire my colleagues who attempt to organize, make sense, and position the field in new ways. For not only is attempting such an organization brave among the vast field of critics, so too is just staying in the CWS field itself. Therefore, the importance of this special issue lies in the hopes of pushing beyond what we know and understand about this field to forever make it critical, complex, and relevant.

One way to make it relevant is to return to the voices of BIPOC scholars on Whiteness because, as DuBois (1903/1989) so poignantly states, “Would America have been America without her Negro people” (p. 215). Too long has Whiteness and, to play off Leonardo’s (2012) wordplay, its hirsute older brother, White supremacy, taught society antiBlackness; as if it was something far removed for other non-Black people of color in the U.S. Yet, it is within the Black experience, particularly within the United States, that we understand how White supremacy, Whiteness, race, and racism operate. While antiBlackness is foundational to how Whiteness and White supremacy are constructed and maintained, I disagree that alone is the sole contributor. That is, the specific racialization of other minoritized groups cannot be simply reduced to a manifestation of antiBlackness or Black-White binaries. Though antiBlackness can and is present within other minoritized groups, it is too reductive to presume that race fits so neatly into finite categories. Executive Order 9066 (internment of Japanese Americans), Operation Wetback, or Executive Order 13769 (Muslim Ban), for instance, were extraordinarily racist and can be understood with a lens of antiBlackness, in conjunction with BlackCrit, AsianCrit, anti-indigeneity, nativist racism, Islamophobia, etcetera which, in concert, all provide some framing of how minoritized groups are expendable under White supremacy. Though other frameworks take up different viewpoints, under the framework of critical Whiteness studies or Whiteness studies writ large, researchers reveal how Whiteness and White supremacy attempt to frame our experiences, and, although we experience it to varying degrees just as Collins (1986) claims under patriarchy White women are obedient dogs and Black women are obstinate mules, we nonetheless can make our own communal joy, identity, and culture of ourselves beyond their White gaze (see Yancy, 2016). Essentially, a theoretical focus on Whiteness and White supremacy calls out the abusers in a cycle of racial abuse (not to say that internalized racism cannot do harm via intergroup dynamics) but that does not necessarily mean that the abused are always to be defined by that abuse or that of their abusers. We can thrive beyond and without Whiteness.

The point is many groups—be they defined by race, culture, sexuality, gender, etc.—experience the dehumanizing, deleterious, and terrorizing effects of Whiteness and White supremacy and, despite the specificities by which they are experienced, none should allow their differences in those experiences divide and conquer, like an “Oppression Olympics.” Instead, the collective “we” must remain focused on the real culprit, the overarching power dynamic that saddles all of us with shitty experiences. This is precisely what then-attorney Thurgood Marshall realized after the 1954s Brown v. Board of Education ruling: instead of fixating on how to get Black students to access a White education, the real question is why White education is better. Scrambling for scraps was never the goal of critical race theory, CWS, or any racially just endeavor. Indeed, the goal is to debunk White supremacy. Only when we come together to speak truth to White power can the facade of White innocence, even within Whiteness studies itself, be exposed.

Therefore, to avoid a White Whiteness study (qua Leonardo, 2013) that is oftentimes too narcissistic because it indulges the White racial epiphany (see Matias, 2021), we must turn to a Black Whiteness studies, one in which we acknowledge a “field originated for us, by us” (Matias, 2022, p. 3). With this in mind, the authors of this special issue took the challenge. I simply asked, “How do you do Whiteness studies—moreover critical Whiteness studies—in ways that honor your being?” These are their words.

Presenting reclaiming Whiteness studies: BIPOC scholars speak out

Presented to you in this special issue are eleven commentaries and one honorary posthumous article, all written by scholars of Color of varying rank throughout the globe. In each piece, they offer how they engage in a critical study of Whiteness (see Matias & Boucher, 2021), inclusive of critiques of the current state of research in Whiteness studies, recommendations for new scholars in the field, and considerations for all as they too take Whiteness to the task.

Socorro Morales, for example, provides a detailed dialectical argument of how Whites must engage in Whiteness studies by recognizing their own journey through racial awareness. Offering her own journey as an example, Morales reveals the intricacies needed to engage in this kind of work that is often lacking in the work of some White scholars.

Reviewing his own and other higher education scholarship, Nolan Cabrera continues this argument, discussing how CWS research often does not link cause with effect. Meaning, that because it is too transfixed on White racialization, it misses the mark in connecting that phenomenon to White supremacy; in doing so, CWS inadvertently erases hope for racial liberation for BIPOC.

Speaking of liberation, D. L. Stewart takes to task the technology of violence and anti-Blackness that operates within Whiteness scholarship, urging scholars to reconsider the violence within their own research that may, regardless of intentionality, harm Black people. Lin Wu, extends this argument of harm by bringing awareness to the roots of Whiteness studies, particularly calling out how scholars and scholarship on Whiteness overlook the contributions of Asian Americans who have steadily contributed to this field yet are rarely cited. From Stacy Lee to Irene Yoon, and from Mari Matsuda to Zeus Leonardo, the erasure of Asian Americanness in the body of Whiteness literature again masks the reality of anti-Asian racism.

Ganiva Reyes and Brittany Aronson offer a feminist of Color perspective to CWS so to remove a CWS that “reeks of first wave Whiteness,” which remains too narrowly focused on White teachers just realizing their White racial identities. Instead, to critically disrupt “the teacher mold that maintains idealized White middle-class femininity,” Reyes and Aronson argue that scholars must recognize the importance of feminism of Color in their analyses (PAGE TBA). The idea of bringing feminism of Color is expanded in Chalais Cee Carter and Korina Jocson’s commentary on the need to bring in Black feminist thought into critical Whiteness studies because the focus on individual racial epiphanies does nothing for the liberation and racially just struggle CWS claims to seek. In breaking this “nice White lady” mold in teacher education, Boni Wozolek and Ameena Atif reveal how incorporating CWS into teacher education is not enough to debunk Whiteness. Though it does give White teacher candidates a schema, per se, to rethink their White privilege, the omission of curriculum theory and understanding of curriculum as living embodiments fails to lead White teacher candidates to realize how they embody Whiteness in their everyday (in)actions and speech.

Kirsten Edwards and Riyad Shahjahan explore how race and time interact through their spiritual journey with whiteness as futurity. They seek to globalize and temporalize discussions around whiteness specifically in the field of higher education. The lessons they have learned on this journey highlight the complexities and potential of collaboration on conceptual research for Black and Brown people. Kako Koshino revisits the harm of Whiteness studies by investigating the impacts Whiteness has on Asians and Asian Americans, particularly how the stereotyping racialization of Asian and Asian Americans, like the Model Minority, impacts how Whiteness Otherizes racial groups.

Finally, G. T. Reyes offers a letter to Whiteness scholars detailing how they should take accountability in the work they do, honor the hurt and pain of BIPOC and forever remember that Whiteness studies should focus on alleviating that pain. By “CREWing up,” Reyes offers a structure by which we can support collective healing from racial abuse by inspiring, empowering, and reminding us that we are not alone in our struggle for a humanizing existence.

Also included in this special issue is one research article in honor of the late educator Hoang Vu Huy Tran. An assistant professor at the Florida Atlantic University, Dr. Tran championed issues of racial justice. His article was submitted and edited posthumously by Dr. Tran’s former doctoral advisor, Zeus Leonardo. Though Dr. Tran is remembered to many in a variety of ways, his life and death remind us that our time as scholars is limited, and though we critique, challenge, and probe other scholars for the sake of bettering the field, we are but a human with numbered days. As such, be critical, thought-provoking, and kind and forgiving—traits that are not mutually exclusive—because, in the end, all we have in this struggle against White supremacy in academia is each other.

Hope and futurity as written from the past

As the field of Whiteness studies expands, scholars are entering the field using various theories to understand Whiteness. One such example is CWS, yet how CWS is used in research varies greatly. Some White Whiteness scholars are adamant that, in their employment of CWS, the study of Whiteness is still a project that must be undertaken by Whites, a process that strategically does not cite scholars of Color. Other authors who claim to use CWS, state that scholars of Color have greatly contributed to the field of Whiteness, some even recognizing that scholars of Color initiated the critique of Whiteness, yet rarely draw substantially from BIPOC scholarship. Finally, some authors claim to use CWS in ways that fixate solely on White racial epiphanies, i.e. that the employment of CWS should be used to help Whites become less racist in their approach to antiracism in education. Here some authors have even categorized Whiteness studies in waves, phases, or trends. As impressive as this is to build the field, a question remains: Is there only one right way to employ CWS?

This special issue journal answers this quandary. In our view, there is no universal road map, blueprint, or a how-to guide to do research on Whiteness. Instead of lamenting this fact, perhaps we scholars should embrace the multiplicity CWS offers us. How beautiful is it that we respond to the complexity of humanity with equally complex theories, approaches, and methodologies? In the absence of a finite path forward, together Whiteness studies and CWS remain rooted in reshifting the White gaze from people of Color onto the actions, behaviors, and patterns of Whites (see Leonardo, 2013). In so doing, society can see more clearly that not only does the cycle of racial abuse reveal the living conditions and dynamics of the abused, but so too are the roles and tactics the abuser plays in this cycle exposed. Scholars committed to Whiteness will do what it takes to end this abusive cycle.

Though I have published work over a short dozen or so years, I have seen great strides, organization, and evolutions in the field of Whiteness studies. To that end, the field is blessed. Yet sadly I have also seen disheartening practices that further stratify our communities, especially during times when we are already so isolated. To assuage this, I remind Whiteness scholars why we came to the field in the first place: to stop the pain and hurt, not add to it. If not for our sake, then for the sake of our children.

As such, I end this introduction with how I first entered this critical, vital study of education, unsurprisingly, no doubt, with DuBois (1903/1989). His words forever remind me of the lamentations we feel in the twinge of Whiteness. Thus, to honor him, the work he laid out before us, and all the work we, Whiteness scholars, have done thus far to rid White supremacy despite our own safety,² vulnerability (e.g. Chapter 7 of Feeling White by Matias, 2016), and Truths, I return to his own words (DuBois, 1903/1989, p. 217):

Hear my cry, O God the Reader; vouchsafe that this is my book fall not still-born into the world-wilderness. Let there spring, Gentle One, from out its leaves vigor of thought and thoughtful deed to reap the harvest wonderful. (Let the ears of a guilty people tingle with truth, and seventy millions sign for the righteousness which exalteth nations, in this drear day when human brotherhood is mockery and a snare.) Thus in Thy good time may infinite reason turn the tangle straight, and these crooked marks on a fragile leaf be no indeed. The End (italics added for emphasis).

To Whiteness scholars, do not let it be all for naught.

Special Note: To Malina, Noah (Javi in Heaven), and Elisa. Mama will do anything to keep the shadow of the veil from you.

Notes

1 For more on anti-Black and racial terror see Hooks (1995/1996), James (1999), Love (2019), Matias (2019), Mills (1997/2014), etc.

2 In times where scholars of race are under attack by the government with Executive Orders, professors are being put on national watchdog lists, and are being stalked and bullied for doing their job.