Even more uncomfortably, I got a question about the class in a job interview. On my transcript, this class shows up as “Working Class White.” The interviewer told me that at first he thought that “White” must be the professor’s name, but then he realized that wasn’t right. “Is that actually the name of the class?” he asked me. I attempted to explain the content of the course, but I hadn’t been expecting an interviewer to ask me about the course with such a tone of disbelief, so I was flustered and didn’t do the best job.
It seems that, regardless of the prevalent discussion of working-class whites in the media during election cycles (see this article and this one and this one and this review of another article), our society isn’t comfortable with the idea of academic studies of working-class whites.
Why is this? It could perhaps be because Americans generally aren’t comfortable talking about class. I think it might be more because we aren’t comfortable talking about whiteness.
I was expecting some pushback on this class, but I was expecting it from those who are involved in critical race studies of other races. I thought that there might be the perception that studying whiteness was a perpetuation of privileging whiteness in academic settings. The reactions I’ve gotten, however, haven’t much alleged that issue.
The issue seems to be that a law class called “Working Class Whites and the Law” makes whiteness visible. Several scholars have written about how a part of the system of white supremacy is that whiteness becomes the default. While other races are "seen," whiteness and white culture are taken for granted and become “invisible.” (See, for example, Critical White Studies (Delgado & Stefancic, eds. 1997)). Making the subject of study in our course explicit necessarily abridges that invisibility, and I think this is what makes people uncomfortable.
This is, in my opinion, a good thing. If even the title of the class on my transcript has the effect of making race visible and disrupting the courses of white privilege, that’s a positive outcome from the course. But selfishly, I wish there were a way to accomplish those objectives with me having to explain in an interview, “Yes, that really is the name of a course I’m taking.”
Why is this? It could perhaps be because Americans generally aren’t comfortable talking about class. I think it might be more because we aren’t comfortable talking about whiteness.
I was expecting some pushback on this class, but I was expecting it from those who are involved in critical race studies of other races. I thought that there might be the perception that studying whiteness was a perpetuation of privileging whiteness in academic settings. The reactions I’ve gotten, however, haven’t much alleged that issue.
The issue seems to be that a law class called “Working Class Whites and the Law” makes whiteness visible. Several scholars have written about how a part of the system of white supremacy is that whiteness becomes the default. While other races are "seen," whiteness and white culture are taken for granted and become “invisible.” (See, for example, Critical White Studies (Delgado & Stefancic, eds. 1997)). Making the subject of study in our course explicit necessarily abridges that invisibility, and I think this is what makes people uncomfortable.
This is, in my opinion, a good thing. If even the title of the class on my transcript has the effect of making race visible and disrupting the courses of white privilege, that’s a positive outcome from the course. But selfishly, I wish there were a way to accomplish those objectives with me having to explain in an interview, “Yes, that really is the name of a course I’m taking.”
That is very interesting that an attorney asked you about our class in an interview. I am interested to know which field he is in (non-profit, government, private?) and whether his inquiry was that of genuine curiosity/interest or of condemnation.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your assessment that American's aren't comfortable talking about whiteness. I think that is evidenced by the interviewer's assumption that "White" was the name of our professor and implying that a class about "Working Class" would be more understandable.
Thanks for this interesting post, which reminds me of a book by John Hartigan, Jr., a UC Santa Cruz anthropologist who teaches at the University of Texas at Austin: What Can you Say? America's National Conversation on Race. https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=10901 He's also written some op-eds and shorter articles over the years exploring why taking about race--including whiteness--is so fraught with peril. Kathy Cramer has also written on this topic broadly speaking: Taking about Race, https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo5378428.html
ReplyDeleteYour post also reminds me of my recent post querying whether we should be explicit about the whiteness of the majority of those displaced by the Camp Fire in Butte County, California. What would be gained--and what lost (other than perhaps a degree of comfort) in doing so?
Thank you for your comments, L Nicole and Professor Pruitt. To respond to your question, L Nicole, this was a private litigation attorney in a mid-sized firm in a relatively small legal market, not a big place like San Francisco. I would say his tone fell between genuine interest and condemnation; it seemed more like the sort of curiosity you have when you poke something strange with a stick to try to figure out what it is. It's probably fine, but you're also prepared to be disgusted.
ReplyDeleteYour question is insightful, though; based on the responses of my law school peers who are involved in public interest, I would expect a much more genuine interest from many public interest attorneys. I wonder if the difference is one of education, values, culture, or something else.
When I tell folks that I am taking WWC and the law, I have encountered similar questions. In general, they seem confused that I would take a class that revolves around whiteness, particularly as a person of color. I usually tell them its a critical race theory class, which generally confuses people because when we talk about race we almost never talk about whiteness.
ReplyDeleteThis class has really opened my eyes to the importance of discussing whiteness when we talk about race. In America, to the detriment of us all, races are defined relationally to whiteness and Blackness. It is therefore impossible to discuss white supremacy, without defining and recognizing whiteness. Without defining all levels of the hierarchy, it is near impossible to understand the boundaries of the groups and to define concepts like white privilege in a nuanced way. I believe with greater discussion around whiteness, white supremacy can be revealed instead of remaining invisible in many people's minds.