Teaching on ‘race’ and ethnicity: problems and potentialities related to ‘positionality’ in reflexive and experiential approaches to teaching and learning

Abstract

This article deals with the difficulties of teaching critically around ‘race’/ethnicity and racism in higher education settings in the UK. The author draws on recent literature and his own teaching experience in order to address the manifold problems related to open classroom discussions about ‘race’/ethnicity and racism. Attempts to create a safe and critical learning environment based on open dialogue are fraught with difficulties, which stem from the pervasive nature of racism and its impact on many students’ and teachers’ experiences. The author suggests that an open and critical acknowledgment of students’ and teachers’ differential positionality is an important aspect of experiential and reflective learning strategies in the field. It also appears necessary to critically engage with the privileges and power dynamics around ‘whiteness’.

Key words:

• race/ethnicity
• racism
• whiteness
• positionality
• reflective learning
• experiential learning

Introduction

Progressive approaches to learning and teaching in the tradition of Paulo Freire conceive of these activities as a cooperation between teachers and learners in a critical process of problem-solving and knowledge production (Freire 1972; hooks 1994). Freire called into question any hierarchical conceptualisation of the learner-teacher relationship. At the same time, he highlighted that intersubjectivity is central to all group-based learning activities. Knowledge is no longer perceived as an asset that can be owned or passed on. Rather, it is reinterpreted as a social value that can be gained through the experience of facing the effort to explore relevant questions through critical reflection, collaborative practice and mutual engagement. It is against this backdrop that Paulo Freire hails the potential of ‘critical and liberating dialogue’. Yet the problem of dialogue may be exacerbated depending on the subject matter. If we teach topics which are overtly controversial or which touch on strong identifications of either students or ourselves, constructive dialogue and a safe learning environment may be much more difficult to achieve. The classroom is not detached from the wider social problems that riddle society. Critical and constructive dialogue is always complicated by the fact that both teachers and learners bring with them particular experiences (of privilege or oppression and vulnerability) to the learning situation. Dialogue is overdetermined — and complicated — by structural power relations, violent histories and their epistemic effects (Ahmed, 2000). As an inevitable result, there are barriers to dialogue and a latent potential for conflict.

It is widely acknowledged that teachers of ‘race’/ethnicity and racism meet a range of specific challenges due to the divisive effects of racism and the complex ways it has impacted on public discourse, social identities and our (psychic) modes of subjectivity. These and other concerns have given rise to a growing (Anglo-lingual) debate on the problems associated with teaching ‘race’ and ethnicity in higher and further education both on this and the other side of the Atlantic. ¹

In this article, I explore some of the difficulties related to teaching ‘race’ and ethnicity in a university setting.

Although I have taught a range of sensitive topics during my career as a teacher in HE (including embodiment, gender and sexuality), I perceive teaching around ‘race’/ethnicity and racism to be one of the most challenging aspects of my teaching practice. My first experience of teaching on ‘race’ and ethnicity reaches back to 1998, when I worked as an associate lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Essex while studying for my PhD. A focus on ‘race’/ethnicity and racism has been a much more consistent feature of my professional practice since I took up employment at Manchester Metropolitan University in autumn 2006, where I have been teaching a variety of cultural studies units in the Department of Sociology. I have dealt with awkward or difficult experiences in many of the units in which I (or we) directly address questions around ‘race’/ ethnicity and racism. ²

In this article, I engage with the specialist literature in order to work out strategies to enable a critical dialogue about ‘race’ and ethnicity in the HE classroom. I further draw on my own teaching experience where I think this is helpful to illustrate or provide substance to my argument. ³ I argue that reflective learning and teaching strategies which acknowledge and utilise the experiential dimension of knowledge about ‘race’/ethnicity and racism need to address the question of positionality (cf Nasir, 2006). As students or teachers, we are all positioned in different ways in the discourses and practices around ‘race’ and ethnicity: it is not wise, I argue, to circumvent this issue in the classroom. In contradistinction, a respectful acknowledgment of differential positionalities (plus their experiential basis and their power effects) is a precondition for critical dialogue to take place. This highlights the necessity to critically explore the theme of whiteness as an integral part of such an approach.

’Race’, ethnicity and racism

The notion of ‘race’ assumes a commonality among people based on a set of physical characteristics. ‘Race’ was elaborated throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a sociobiological concept across a range of disciplines, which drew central inspiration from the intellectual project of ‘race science’ (Gould, 1981; Kohn, 1995; Gilman, 1985). Different parts and shapes of the body have been considered relevant for establishing a person’s ‘race’ in a discourse evolving over the centuries, including (among others) ‘blood’, skull size, brain structure, skin pigmentation, facial features, hair texture and genetic codes. Racial classification has been highly context-specific and involves perceptual and cognitive mechanisms that include rules about perception and non-perception, selection, ordering and schemes of emotional response or affect (Wallman, 1978; Omi and Winant, 1994; Ahmed, 2000, 2004). The production of knowledge about ‘race’ (and following from that the alleged separation of humanity into different ‘races’) has been propelled by ambitions to colonial rule and expansion. From the inception of the category, the idea of ‘race’ was mobilised for claims of white (racial) superiority (McClintock, 1995; Goldberg, 1997; Dyer 2006). Yet, as recent critical scholarship on whiteness has pointed out, whiteness is an unstable and shifting racial category which has been ascribed or denied to groups depending on the power relations which prevail in a certain social context. Anti-Irish racism in Britain and the USA, for example, based the allegation of ‘primitiveness’ on both biological distinction and cultural differentiation (McClintock, 1995; Murji, 2002; Garner, 2006). The workings of anti-Irish racism and anti-Semitism illustrate that ‘colour racism’ has been a significant and pervasive but not an absolutely necessary feature of all forms of racisms (Cohen, 1988; Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1992). As we have seen, racial classification has always been multi-faceted, and in the significatory schemes of some racisms, body traits and features, distinct from skin colour or shade, may play a more salient role. Moreover, many researchers suggest that, over recent decades, racist discourses have often evolved around culturalist rather than biologistic narratives (Solomos and Back, 1996). There is a wide consensus in the (constructivist) social sciences today that the classification of human beings along lines of ‘race’ has no rational justification in the light of the biological, social or cultural knowledge available to us. It is because ‘race’ can be described as a fictive reality in the service of power relations that the terminology of ‘race’ is problematic and widely contested (Gilroy, 2000). Over recent years, race-critical scholars have therefore suggested the adaptation of a perspective of ‘racialisation’ (Murji and Solomos, 2005). ‘The concept of racialisation … refers to the historical emergence of the idea of ‘race’ and to its subsequent reproduction and application. Furthermore, the racialisation of the processes in which they participate and the structures and institutions that result’ (Robert Miles, quoted by Nayak 2005: 142). By deploying the term ‘racialisation’, scholars hope to highlight the discursive character of ‘race’ and to diminish the danger that the critical debate of ‘race’ and racism will have the unintended effect of reinforcing the categories it aims to challenge. This is a problem right at the heart of all critical work committed to deconstructing or challenging racism (cf Gilroy, 1992). Due to the problematic legacy of the language of ‘race’, many teachers and tutors tend to prefer the term ethnicity. In popular understandings, ethnicity draws its meanings and substance from cultural differences. The focus on culture allows questions of biology and physical difference to be side-stepped. Distinct customs, traditions, values, beliefs, a sense of shared history (among other things) are said to be important criteria for ethnic group membership. Yet anti-essentialist scholars have questioned the concreteness of ethnicity. They define ethnicity as a ‘boundary process’ and see ethnic groups as social constructs, empty ‘organisational vessels’ into which in theory all kinds of symbols and markers could be poured (Barth, 1969; cf Solomos and Back, 1996). Various scholars explain ethnicity as a mode of narrativising the everyday life world (Brah, 1996), an effect of governmental acts of categorisation (Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1992), an instrumentalist rallying point for advancing certain political projects (Yuval-Davis, 1997), a field of cultural experimentation and affiliation (Hall, 1992), or a technique of ‘making up people’ (Carter and Fenton, 2009). Far from representing strong primordial ties, ethnicity is internally contested and gains shape and relevance under specific historical circumstances, often marked by struggles around material resources (Carter and Virdee, 2008). Moreover, as some critics rightly point out, common usages of the term mirror central features of (previous) race discourses. In the mass of the literature, the term ‘ethnicity’ is rarely applied to white people. The common assumption seems to be that Black ⁴ people are ‘ethnic’ but white people are not, just as Blackness is considered to represent ‘race’, whereas whiteness appears as a norm rather than a specific racial category (Gamman et al, 1993; Dyer, 2006). Anthias and Yuval-Davis (1992: 148) talk of the ‘ethnicisation’ of Blackness. Ideologies around both ‘race’ and ethnicity have been central to the history of European nation-state building (Mosse, 1985). Representations of the nation often deploy narrative strategies of ‘ethnicisation’ or ‘racialisation’ and play a prominent role in the legitimisation of racist practices (Balibar and Wallerstein, 1993). This has the effect that the racist discourses on certain groups may differ significantly, depending on the (national) context of their articulation (cf Erel, 2009). Although there is no truth and no compelling logic in ‘race’ or ethnicity thinking, ethnicised and racialised representations continue to shape our perceptions of the world. Racist ideologies are continuously invoked to explain social realities and legitimise the decisions about the policies of institutions and governments. This has profound implications for the approaches open to us if we are involved in teaching ‘race’ and ethnicity.

Reflective and experiential approaches to teaching on ‘race’ and ethnicity and the problem of positionality

It is an important aim of critical teaching around ‘race’ and ethnicity to enable students to critically reflect on the conceptual language of ‘race’ and ethnicity and to understand how these concepts operate in racist discourses and practices. Reflective learning is ultimately about the ability to call into question existing knowledges (cf Brockbank and McGill, 2003). Teaching around ‘race’ and ethnicity therefore needs to consider learning activities that foster critical thinking. Critics have rightly pointed out that it is insufficient to conceive of reflection as a purely rationalistic and individualistic activity. Critical reflectivity incorporates interactive or dialogical dimensions (Smith, 1996/1999). Experience has a significant potential for learning processes here. There is a strong affinity between reflective and experiential forms of learning (Boud, Keogh and Walker, 1985). Such insights have been utilised in the recent appraisal of autobiographical techniques as examples of a ‘reflective practice’ in education (cf Leshem and Trafford, 2006). Shafqat Nasir (2006) stresses the significance of the experiential dimension for teaching and learning around ‘race’ and ethnicity. The provision of a well-composed and reflective teaching content alone cannot guarantee a critical learning experience, she argues. A ‘banking approach’ (Freire, 1972) to knowledge transfer which hopes to achieve the optimised accumulation of the right kind of insights and theories is particularly inappropriate for a topic such as racism which plays a powerful and often devastating role in many students’ and teachers’ lives. This calls for approaches that encourage active and engaged learning, and involves a redefinition of the role of the teacher/tutor as a facilitator, guide and co-learner. Nasir utilises Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle (which stresses the mutually reinforcing learning potentials of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation) and combines it with a developmental model of anti-discriminatory practice (based on a transformative ethics focusing on ideas, action, evaluation and commitment). In this model, experiential and reflective processes feed into each other (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Combined model of experiential learning and developmental model of anti-discriminatory practice (Kolb, 1984) (source: Nasir, 2006: 86)

Nasir holds the view that the model is applicable for many forms of classroom interaction, even if they do not involve any intense small group or project work or out-of-classroom activities. A broad understanding of discourse as practice (cf Sawyer, 2002) allows us to conceive of critical dialogue and group discussion as a form of experiential action (Nasir, 2006: 86). This highlights the intersubjective and experiential dimension and the critical potential of group discussions (Brookfield and Preskill, 1999). Encouraging experiential learning processes brings to the fore emotionality. Academic discourse is focused on rationalistic analysis. This is mirrored in a reductionist concern with cognitive processes within the theory of learning and teaching. It is open to question to what extent a purely rationalistic approach to teaching ‘race’/ethnicity and racism can be successful or satisfactory. Histories of racism evolve around the memories of violence, destruction and genocide. This makes it difficult to approach the question of racism with a detached habitus. Those who have been personally harmed by racism may deal with feelings of anger, frustration or lack of patience when they are confronted with certain views. Those who are members of privileged collectivities may be unsettled by feelings of denial, aggression, helplessness or guilt. Yet emotive language is not usually welcome in academic settings. It is considered to be unruly, non-objective and unscientific. Research and autobiographical teacher narratives indicate that discussions about ‘race’/ethnicity and racism can even trigger extremely strong emotions in the classroom (Jacobs, 2006b; Housee, 2006a; Körner and Garrard, 2006; Cumberbatch, 2006).

Depending on the context, seminar groups in HEIs in the UK may be very diverse in terms of ethnic composition. This is particularly the case in courses offered at so-called new universities, which are frequently located in urban centres (Jacobs et al, 2006). The diversification of the student body at some institutions has been an inevitable effect of widening participation strategies (and their uneven implementation across the UK HE system). Racism results in deep divisions and strongly shapes the life experiences of individuals (Fanon, 1986). Differences in experience (of racism) thus matter a great deal in discussions about ‘race’/ethnicity and racism in ethnically diverse classroom settings. This is why, Nasir (2006) suggests, we need to pay attention to the impact of positionality on teaching and learning around ‘race’ and ethnicity (cf Jacobs et al, 2006; Jacobs, 2006b). Nasir’s (2006) incorporation of a reflection of differential positionality in her model of active engaged learning is one of the most interesting aspects of her proposal (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Combined model (source: Nasir, 2006: 91)

Positionality here not only refers to the levels of self-identity or categorisation: ‘It is about relations of power as they are played out within the conditions of history’ (Arber, quoted in Nasir, 2006: 75). The perspective of positionality strives for an understanding of the manifold and varying impacts of the interconnected oppressive forces around ‘race’/ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, age and dis/ability on the life experiences of individuals (Erel et al, 2008). Position is always relational. This means that the question of how a person is placed in relation to common racist practices and discourses is assumed to have an effect on his/her cognitive and emotional response to the issue of racism. At the same time, positionality perspectives refute generalisation and/or homogenisation. This is expressed, for example, in Avtar Brahs’ (1996) concept of ‘differential racialisation’, which acknowledges that racism constructs people in differing ways depending on their class position or gender and sexual identities, etc.

What does this mean in practice? Active and engaged learning about ‘race’/ethnicity and racism depends on a situation in which it is possible for all participants to engage in a critical reflective discussion from their personal position. This means that it is necessary to create spaces for members in the group to talk about their experiences, thoughts and emotions about the topic. This is only possible if an ethos prevails, according to which differential positioning in the fields of power around racism is acknowledged. This includes an acknowledgement of the various degrees of (emotional) risk for participants in a teaching/learning situation to participate in such activities. It also includes the necessity to open up inquiries about oppression and privilege. For classes on ‘race’ and ethnicity taught in the UK, this means that questions around hegemonic forms of whiteness also need to be addressed (cf Housee, 2006b; Borum, 2006).

Teacher and student positionality and the construction of voice, authenticity and authority

Black and ethnic minority academic staff are under-represented in teaching positions in HE. This is particularly the case where senior positions are concerned. Research indicates that the experience of racism and direct or indirect forms of discrimination often reinforce a sense of isolation (Simmonds, 1997; Jacobs et al, 2006). ‘Race’ plays a role in the construction of academic expertise, too. Even if many Black and ethnic minority teachers have embarked on teaching ‘race’, ethnicity and racism due to their personal academic interests (or their political commitments to anti-racism), many report that they are quickly regarded as the ‘race person’ in the department. Although the situation has changed a little over recent years, in sociology, ‘race’ and racism are still confined to a limited number of sessions in core units or are entirely constricted to units with an elective status. There is a widely felt sense among teachers in this area that the core discipline still seals itself off and denies the significance of ‘race’ and racism within sociological theory (Banton, 2003; Law, 2003). Against this backdrop, a few proactive members of staff are all too easily assumed to ‘cover’ the topic — which means that nobody else feels the necessity to contribute to the teaching around these issues (Murji, 2003; Jacobs et al, 2006; Jacobs and Tate, 2006). Autobiographical reflections of Black and ethnic minority teachers provide evidence that students’ responses and reactions are influenced by the ethnicity of the teacher providing the education on ‘race’, ethnicity and racism (Jacobs et al, 2006; Jacobs, 2006b). This has profound implications for the construction of voice, authenticity and authority. In particular, white students are often irritated to realise that the unit they have enrolled on is provided by a teacher of colour. In particular, young women of colour (or women who appear to be young) report a frequent scepticism by students or staff that they are in fact the teacher when they take the position in the front of the class (Jacobs and Tate, 2006). This illustrates the interplay of gendered and racialised representations in the construction of ideal-typical knowledge-bearers. The occasional question, ‘Where is the lecturer?’ brings students’ irritation and confusion around their expectation of what ‘a proper lecturer’ may look like right to the fore.

As a white teacher of male gender I do not usually have to establish my authority as a teacher and expert against the common impression that this is not what I am. On several occasions, students have read me as fellow student rather than lecturer when I have first entered the classroom, but this is a different kind of story. I assume that the misreading of my role has been primarily due to the fact that I tend to dress casually; this issue of style also has age connotations. Students’ misinterpretation of the situation does not call into question my competence to teach the unit by drawing stereotypical conclusions from central features of my embodied subjectivity or identity.

Yet teaching ‘race’/ethnicity and racism as a white teacher tends to bring with it a quite specific set of problems regarding positionality. Positionality is always relational, with relationality referring to both the intersubjective level and the wider field of power relations. As a white teacher, I usually find myself being much more preoccupied with the question of how my teaching role is perceived by Black and ethnic minority students than by white students. Writing indicates that I share this preoccupation with other ethnically privileged white teachers in the field (Körner and Garrad, 2006; cf Jacobs et al, 2006; Jacobs, 2006b). Questions about legitimation play an important role here. Although the situation may have changed over the last decade, identity politics has established an expectation among many Black students that units on ‘race’/ethnicity and racism should be taught by a person of colour. In particular, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, many politicised Black students had strong reservations about being confronted with white lecturers in units on racism (Housee, 2006b; Cumberbatch, 2006; Jacobs, 2006b). The assumption that only a person who has first-hand experience of racism has the skills to teach on racism forms an important part of this expectation. This reaction may partially be borne out of a lack of perception of certain racisms (for example, anti-Semitism). A further issue at stake in these conflicts about white people teaching ‘race’ and ethnicity is the question of authenticity (Housee, 2006b). Yet these arguments may not fully explain these tensions. I suppose that, in many cases, students’ dissatisfaction derives from a profound scepticism — if not actual disappointment — regarding white teachers’ willingness to position themselves clearly in conflicts about racism.

I have had a range of experiences that I have understood to be Black students questioning or testing my ability to teach on racism in a responsible manner. For example, in a classroom discussion on the relationship of British people with recent immigrants from Europe, a British African Caribbean student made the rather general statement that she did not want to discuss certain issues with people from other European countries. This was because she would not want to offend those people. In the list of examples she gave to explicate her point of view she included a reluctance to discuss racism with a person from Germany. Even if the student did not personally address me in her statement, I could not help but take it as a reference to my role as a person from Germany teaching about ‘race’/ethnicity and racism in Britain. Only a few minutes earlier, drawing on my experiences of having lived in Germany and in the UK, I had reflected on how I perceived racism to work differently at the institutional level and in the public debate in the two countries. The student’s response made me wonder whether she was reluctant to convey her unease about finding herself in a discussion about racism in the UK with a white German (teacher). The strong association of Germanness with Nazism (and thus ultra-racism) in British discourses on German nationality provides a backdrop to my emotional dealings with this interaction.

Apart from a negotiation of (my) white teacher subjectivity, this example touches on a further layer of positionality, which I wish to explore further: the issue of nationality. I find it interesting that I have been asked several times to explicate my opinion on racism in Germany by (Black and ethnic minority) students in a unit which specifically addresses issues around race/ethnicity and racism in the UK. Since I communicate my anti-racist and anti-imperialist point of view quite clearly in my teaching, I do not think that these questions are aimed primarily at finding out about my ideas on racism. Rather, I am convinced that students are negotiating my peculiar position as a German teaching on British culture with an anti-racist perspective. In my understanding, students are testing whether I am prepared to scrutinise and criticise racism in ‘my own culture’ in a similar way. I understand these questions about my opinion on racism in Germany as inquiries into both the nature and extent of my commitment to anti-racism. Of course, it may also be a way to define (and limit) the discursive terrain they think it would be appropriate for me to cover. This interpretation brings to the fore the question of authenticity but this time at the level of nationality (rather than ‘race’). In both examples, Black students take a consideration of my position as a white German teacher as a starting point to scrutinise my understanding of and opinion on racism — starting from assumptions about both whiteness and nationality. ⁵ As a white teacher in this subject area, I have at times had to counter certain mistrust by Black students; to put it differently, I have had to gain their trust through a sensitive and responsible approach to my teaching practice. The question of whether or not I demonstrate a nuanced (emotional and intellectual) understanding of the complexities of racism in classroom discussions is an important issue here. The ability to ‘see’ certain forms of racism is as important as readiness to take a principled anti-racist position. In my experience, a situation of trust is also much more likely to emerge if I relate to these issues from a personal point of view. My experience matters. Students appreciate teachers showing that they are touched by the subjects under discussion. Moreover, relating my own (particularistic) perspective may help create an intersubjective understanding which acknowledges the prevalence of differential positions. The proactive incorporation of experiences in classroom discussions only works in the face of an open and non-judgmental atmosphere. For this to be possible, students need to feel that their contributions are welcome and that there is space for contradictions. As a white teacher, I need to find ways of responding that highlight the injustices around race/ethnicity, take issues further on an analytical level and not close down discussion. I will comment in closer detail on the inherent difficulties of this task in the following section.

Students tend to read a teacher’s discourse on ‘race’ and racism through the lens of the teacher’s subjective positioning to the problem of racism. This kind of ‘framing’ has very different implications for Black and ethnic minority teachers. The literature suggests that the response of students to Black and ethnic minority staff as teachers on ‘race’ units is mediated by the self-identification of students. Black and ethnic minority students often appreciate working with teachers of colour since they assume an immediate understanding of their own experiences of racism (Housee, 2006b), making it easier for them to bond around this commonality. Moreover, seeing Black people in the respectable and authoritative role of teacher is experienced as empowerment by some students because it illustrates that it is possible for Black people to achieve and to have a career (Jacobs et al, 2006; Housee, 2006b). On the other hand, Black teachers’ critical discourse on racism is frequently dismissed by white students as a merely personal diatribe borne out of personal resentment (Nasir, 2006). There is a common perception among white students that Black and ethnic minority teachers (and students) speak on ‘race’ and racism primarily from their experience (Simmonds, 1997: 227). In an academic context that gives objectivity the status of disinterested and detached mastery of knowledge, this undermines academic credentials. The discourse of teachers who belong to groups that are confronted with racism is further disqualified as being distorted by resentment and emotionality. These teachers often feel a strong need to control their emotionality in the context of teaching on racism in order not to be cast as angry or resentful (Jacobs and Tate, 2006). Black students’ voices, too, are often dismissed if they speak out against racism.

The accusation of being biased, angry or irrational is often shored up by more general racist stereotypes about Black people as loud, aggressive or ‘difficult’. Strains of such thinking were clearly evidenced in the teaching material provided at a ‘Teaching sociological theory’ workshop session I attended a few years ago in London. Participants were asked to engage in a group discussion about how to deal with difficult attitudes among students, which may obstruct a fruitful discussion about theory to take place in a class context. The workshop organisers presented several clichéd profiles of students whose behaviour contributed to a dynamic that could stifle group work dynamics. One of these profiles presented a young, Black (African or African Caribbean) feminist whose (self-righteous) radical ideas and persistence, it was implied, presented a continuous challenge to the group dynamics. This representation merged the cliché of the loud, sassy young Black woman with a dismissive attitude towards Black feminism as a form of exaggerated political correctness. My discussion in this section has shown that both teachers’ and students’ positionalities matter a great deal in whether their voices are perceived to be authentic or whether they can assume authority in a class on ‘race’/ethnicity and racism. In the following section, I will focus on conflict in discussions about racism from a positionality perspective.

The discourse of ‘race’/racism — discomfort, denial and conflict

The question of ‘intervention’ is a salient topic in the literature on teaching ‘race’ and ethnicity (Farrar, 2006; Housee, 2006b; Jacobs 2006b). Research suggests that teachers from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds struggle with the dilemma of wanting to provide an open learning environment in which all students may freely express their thoughts, concerns and worries, while feeling the need to create a safe learning space in which Black and ethnic minority students are not exposed to racism (cf Nasir, 2006; Housee, 2006a; Jacobs, 2006b). Yet it is a striking feature in this literature that teachers from a white ethnic background seem to be much more preoccupied with worries, about whether they have ‘done the right thing’ in dealing with these conflicts (Körner and Garrad, 2006). A plea for the need for intervention is more likely to be found in texts authored by Black teachers (Cumberbatch 2006: 153/154, cf Housee, 2006b: 65).

Let me expand a little on the dilemma concerning attempts to organise a non-authoritarian, democratic classroom, in which all students have the ability to express their point of view, and the urge for intervention. There is a widely shared opinion in the literature that it is not helpful to suppress certain points of view from the start. ‘If the tutor crushes dissent and closes minds, then (whatever the political aims) education has stopped’ (Farrar, 2006: xvi). Yet, at the same time, there prevails an equally widely acknowledged insight that discussion about racism is fraught with potential outbursts of animosity and racism. Some tutors aim to safeguard a discussion based on mutual respect and sensitivity against the violent effects of racist language and practice by setting ground rules for classroom interaction (Jacobs et al, 2006; Jacobs, 2006b; Cumberbatch 2006b). Others are less optimistic that such ground rules have the potential to contain potential conflicts around racism (Jacobs and Tate, 2006). Still others suggest that the introduction of ground rules reinforces the particularity of the topic of ‘race’ and racism and has the ultimate effect of silencing some students (Jacobs, 2006b). In which way ever teachers decide to approach this issue, most would acknowledge that intervention is often a tricky and difficult enterprise. Often students within the group speak out and challenge problematic racist views. Some believe that this may have even more effect than a teacher’s intervention (cf Housee, 2006b: 65f.). Personally, I try to challenge racist terminology, racist claims and bigotry by explaining language, highlighting the significance of positionality in discussing racism, or by highlighting the role of problematic claims and narratives in their wider geopolitical and historical context. Yet, at times, I feel constrained by my wariness not to silence students. Outside the classroom, I would take on many of the opinions under question in a very different fashion. As a result, I sometimes find myself struggling with the question of whether or not my reaction may allow students to ‘get away’ with things or whether it might even contribute to silencing other students, that is, the ones who are positioned at the receiving end of racism in their everyday lives. The fact that some students may utter racist opinions is not the only source of conflict. Often tension is triggered by a deeply felt defensiveness among some of the white students. Many white students respond with discomfort and denial to a curriculum which foregrounds questions of racism (Körner and Garrard, 2006). There are manifold ways through which students can deny or belittle the dimension of racism in certain contexts and situations (cf Nasir, 2006: 87/88).

My awareness of the frequency of such reactions makes it sometimes difficult to prepare classes or to choose appropriate teaching material. For example, in order to illustrate the interconnection between discourses on ‘race’ and sexuality in the context of homophobia, I considered using an excerpt of Gail Mason’s (2002) book on hate crime for a close reading activity in a class on the body and sexuality. In this section, Mason tries to demonstrate the difficulty of discerning elements of racism and homophobia in two incidents in which two Asian—Australian women were subjected to verbal and physical abuse in urban public places. While I appreciate Mason’s nuanced analysis of the interview transcripts, I decided to withdraw from this activity briefly before the session because I worried that the discussion about this text could go wrong. Both seminar groups were predominantly white in composition, with only a small number of Black and ethnic minority students present. Although I did not know about the sexual identities of most of my students, I perceived the group to be predominantly straight. ⁶ Only one student of east Asian background participated in one of the seminar groups. I became anxious that Black students — and in particular this student who may have experienced very similar forms of racism — might find themselves exposed to a situation in which a group of white people got into a debate about whether the described incidents were to be considered racism or not. Since the denial of racism can be very offensive and frustrating for people who are experiencing it, I opted for an alternative activity.

I have experienced many situations in which students belittled or called into question the seriousness of racist incidents discussed in teaching material. This was the case in a discussion about the poem, ‘So you think I’m a mule’, by Jackie Kay, in which the autobiographical narrator, a Black women of mixed (Nigerian and Scottish) heritage, challenges the racist and stereotyping assumptions of a white young woman (Woodward, 2004). While the poem was positively received as a powerful piece of self-affirmative, anti-racist writing in one of the seminar groups (which contained a large number of Black students of various ethnic backgrounds), it was dismissed as unfair, aggressive and an instantiation of reverse racism in another group (consisting almost exclusively of white students). I am retelling this example primarily to illustrate the prevalence of defensive reactions among white students if confronted with the topic of racism. Yet this may serve to demonstrate a further issue: the question of how discussions about ‘race’ and racism develop in the classroom is strongly dependent on its ethnic composition. According to my observation, it is much more likely that students will come up with racist remarks about particular ethnic or religious groups if no (or few) representatives of this group are present in the classroom. Racism (or the denial of racism) is more freely expressed if speakers do not fear being reprimanded or if they assume a common sense regarding their views in the group. I have made this observation particularly in relation to the articulation of cultural racism against south Asians and/or Muslims. Such expressions of cultural racism are not necessarily restricted to white majority ethnic students. Reflective writing by teachers of ‘race’/ethnicity and racism suggests that Black and ethnic minority students, too, may have a selective awareness of racism (cf Housee, 2006b; Cumberbatch, 2006). This makes it even more necessary to highlight in teaching the multiplicity of racisms and to reflect on the different experiences of different groups in a comparative perspective (Jacobs et al, 2006; Jacobs, 2006b). For example, while teaching on ‘race’ and ethnicity in the UK tends to strongly reflect racisms against south Asian and African Caribbean communities, other forms of racism, such as racism against east Asian people, anti-Irish racism and anti-Semitism, are not frequently covered (Murji, 2003).

Outlook: towards an active and engaged learning and teaching practice on ‘race’/ethnicity and racism

Although conversations about racism in the classroom are fraught with problems, most writers in the field suggest that it is useful to encourage students to bring their personal experiences. Stressing the experiential dimension in learning and teaching about ‘race’ and ethnicity has several advantages. In the context of a multi-ethnic classroom, bringing together accounts of students’ experiences of racism may help to reflect the diversity and contextual nature of racist discourse and practice (Housee, 2006b). It recognises the expertise of many students on this issue, whether in terms of their experience or their knowledge of the literature (Cumberbatch, 2006). Moreover, it is through an engagement with different experiences that the significance of differential positionality in the context of racism can ultimately be uncovered (Nasir, 2006). Applying a reflective and experiential approach to teaching ‘race’ and racism also means encouraging white students and teachers to talk about their experiences. This may challenge an awkward twist in the dominant ways through which experience is linked into learning and teaching around ‘race’. ‘Black academics are expected to talk about the issue of ‘race’ as a personal experience. White academics, even when they are ‘race’ experts, are not expected to. It’s as if ‘race’, as an experience, is only of concern to those who are ‘racialised’ by social theory itself’ (Simmonds, 1997: 227). Simmonds suggests that the experience of whiteness (or the experience of white people) matters, too, in the larger enterprise of trying to understand ‘race’ and ethnicity. In a similar vein, Nayak (2005) has suggested that we should broaden the definition of ‘racialisation’ to include whiteness as a ‘racial’ subjectivity. An inclusion of perspectives derived from within critical whiteness studies in the curriculum is certainly one step in this direction. Yet I have argued throughout this article that the reliance on a comprehensive anti-racist curriculum is not sufficient to ground active and engaged learning and teaching practices. Simmonds’ (1997) point about the relevance of (white people’s) experience of whiteness for a critical theory of ‘race’ is meant quite literally. If white teachers position themselves against the regime of ignorance, exploitation and terror, maintained through the practice of racism, this may also encourage others (including students) to question the privilege and power tied to normative white identities. There is a common complaint in the literature that white students are silent in classes on ‘race’ and ethnicity. This silence often stems from their feeling that, as white people, they have nothing to say about ‘race’ (hooks, 1994). Encouraging white students to speak and partake in discussion may help in establishing a critical perspective on whiteness as a central term in the hierarchical discourse of ‘race’ and racism (cf Housee, 2006b; Dyer, 2006). I have argued throughout this article that this strategy also opens the floodgates for the articulation of opinions, sentiments and experiences that support the workings of racism. However difficult it may be for teachers to handle the conflicts that emerge from these dynamics, I think this risk must be taken. There is no way to avoid conflicts when teaching about ‘race’/ethnicity and racism.

Biography

Christian Klesse works as senior lecturer in cultural studies at Manchester Metropolitan University. He was an assistant lecturer on the Gender Studies and Queer Theory Programme at the University of Hamburg from 2004 to 2006, and held the 2004/2005 Sociological Review Research Fellowship at Keele University. His research interests lie in the areas of sexualities, social movements, race/ethnicity, embodiment, body modification and research methodology. He is author of The Spectre of Promiscuity (Ashgate) and a range of journal articles and book chapters in the fields of study listed above.

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to Susie Jacobs, Shafqat Nasir and Shirley Tate who gave generous feedback on previous drafts of this article. I would further like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and their helpful advice for revision.

Notes

¹ In the USA, the debate has a longer history and a slightly higher profile (hooks, 1994; Borum, 2006; cf Housee, 2006a). Yet in the UK, too, we could witness a range of significant publications over recent years. For example, in 2003 the journal Ethnic and Racial Studies staged a debate on teaching race and ethnicity focused on a lead article by Banton (2003). The Subject Network for Sociology, Anthropology, Politics (C-SAP) of the Higher Education Academy published three excellent edited volumes on teaching race and ethnicity in higher education over recent years (Farrar and Todd, 2006; Spencer and Todd, 2006; Jacobs, 2006a).

² ‘Race’/ethnicity, racism and colonialism are important perspectives in the curriculum of the stage 3 unit ‘The culture of Britishness’, which I taught on my own for many years until my colleague Shoba Arun and I decided to co-teach it. These issues are also prominent in the unit ‘Identity, culture and difference’, which I also teach with Shoba Arun. My stage 3 elective unit ‘Body, sexuality and culture’ also has a persistent and integrated focus on race/ethnicity.

³ I will do this in a way that safeguards the anonymity of students or colleagues involved in these situations.

⁴ I use the term ‘Black’ in this article as a broad (non-essentialist) umbrella term as it has been developed in anti-racist politics since the late 1960s in the UK to create a platform for a coalitional struggle of various groups of people affected by racism (cf Brah, 1996). I occasionally also use the term ‘people of colour’, which usually has a stronger currency in the USA, but is also used by UK authors and activists. I value this term’s potential to escape essentialist readings, avoid ethnocentric interpretations and to direct attention to the significance of shade in both racist and anti-racist epistemologies (Tate, 2009). Of course, it is true that what is generally referred to as ‘whiteness’ is a skin colour, too, which is evidenced by references to Europeans in many historical sources as, for example, yellow, red or pale blue (Bonnett, 1997). At the same time, whiteness tends to be naturalised and does not go hand in hand with a ‘colour consciousness’ in many hegemonic cultural settings in Europe. I will not spell whiteness with a capital letter in this article. Although whiteness (like Blackness) is best perceived as a non-homogenous category, it has not been (and cannot be) subject to a progressive politicisation as it has been the case with ‘Blackness’ (Eggers et al, 2005). At times, I also use the term ‘ethnic minorities’ in order to acknowledge that some forms of racism (such as anti-Semitism) are not constructed (primarily) around differences in skin colour. Members of white racialised minorities do not usually claim the term ‘Black’. Such claims would probably also be contested.

⁵ This example shows that whiteness is not a homogeneous category derived from a unified set of discourses. Ideas on whiteness are contextual and intersubjective and intermesh with a range of discourses, with nationality being of primary importance. Generation, gender, class and sexuality are further elements in the discursive repertoire for the articulation of representations around whiteness.

⁶ Racism is not the only sensitive topic in the context of this activity. It closely intersects here with gender and sexuality (in the form of violence towards non-heterosexual women).