Tag Archives: white

Exposing Privilege and Racism by Lund and Carr

Exposing Privilege and Racism in “The Great White North: Tackling Whiteness and Identity Issues in Canadian Education” by Darren E. Lund and Paul R. Carr.

I chose this article (and three others to follow) to provide some Canadian context for my writing. Several points the authors make stand out for me. The authors describe themselves as “White” (229). They footnote their use of the term with the following:

We use a capitalized form of White and Whiteness to distinguish it from the name of the color, and to mark it as a racialized and socially constructed category just as we do with Black and Blackness; at the same time, we wish to reject simplistic binaries as they have no merit as biological categories. (229)

This is important because I too have been attempting to qualify my use of those terms, but I have been confronted with the idea that I may be essentialising. Lund and Carr further on in their brief paper also remind the reader that they are being careful to not essentialise Whiteness, but that they “recognize that group and collective experiences have been shaped, to varying degrees, by racial identification” (230). I think this notion of essentialising is important. First of all, it is difficult to discuss Whiteness without using the terms White and Whiteness and the charge of essentialism comes from, I believe, using these particular terms. Lund and Carr also mention the potential conundrum that exists, where the discussion of Whiteness has the potential to reify Whiteness. Secondly, moving the discussion to the broader topic of racialsation without invoking the terms White and Whiteness (and what they imply even though they are constructed categories) means that Whites can further deflect the charge of racism by claiming that they too have been racialised. I do not deny that this occurs and it is something that I wish to explore in my visual projects, but I do not think that it bodes well if the the discussion rests or stops on that issue alone.

Lund and Carr also make the point that the work of “multiculturalism and anti-racism is permeated with resistance and denial” (226). Throughout their essay they use several examples of personal responses they have had to their work that show this resistance and denial. I have also experienced this in several ways. Most recently, some students in a class where I was a teaching assistant asked me about my thesis topic. I told them I was broadly dealing with the subject of Whiteness. Two (White) students immediately told me that I must be feeling some White guilt. Further on the authors state that “Whiteness is shrouded with denials that give White people yet another form of privilege: the ability to avoid discussion of how oppression continues to benefit White people” (231). Clearly, no one wants to hear that they have been behaving badly, when all along they have thought of themselves as a “good” person and especially when they haven’t been aware of it. It is a very difficult topic.

I appreciate their final statement. “…focus on the twin projects of understanding privilege and social justice [,…] sustained critical interrogation, dialog and action in relation to Whiteness can lead to significant individual and collective change” (233).

– – – – –

Work Cited

Lund, Darren E., and Paul R. Carr. “Exposing Privilege and Racism in ‘The Great White North: Tackling Whiteness and Identity Issues in Canadian Education’.” Multicultural Perspectives 12.4 (2010): 229-34. EBSCO. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.

Dyer’s White


In preliminary searches on the concept of whiteness the work of Richard Dyer repeatedly surfaces. Dyer has written several books on the subject.


There are several important ideas contained within Richard Dyer’s book White (1997). Within this blog format I will pull out a couple. Richard Dyer calls his project one of “making whiteness strange” (4). That whiteness should become marked rather than invisible. Dyer explains that whiteness is recognized in relation to the representation of the non-white1 (11). He invokes both Toni Morrison’s Playing in the Dark (1992) and Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), since both these authors works “suggest that white discourse implacably reduces the non-white subject to being a function of the white subject” (13). Can we then say that both white and non-white are defined by the spaces where they meet? I have wrestled with this previously in a recent paper. “In works such as Kazimir Malevich’s Black Square (1915) […] the blackness of the square is understood in relation to its white ground. Discussion about Black Square is centered on the black square as the subject of the painting, while the white ground remains unnamed.” What I think is also important here is that the positioning of non-white in relation to white (foreground and ground dichotomy enters the discourse too) provides a way for the white to remain unnamed, not the subject of deconstruction or analysis.

Dyer does express some concerns with the whole project. He lists several. The first he calls the “green light” problem (10). Where writing now gives whites to do “what in any case we have always talked about: ourselves” (10). Then there is what he calls “me-too-ism” (10). A type of navel gazing where whites are able to say in essence “we are part of a group too.” Also contained in me-too-ism is “the sense that being white is no great advantage, what with being so uptight, [and] out of touch with our bodies” (10). In addition to the previous ideas there is also the new oppressed group, the white man who can’t get a job (10). Dyer expresses a fear that “talking about whiteness could lead to the development of something called ‘White Studies’” (10). However, he is not fearful that is will “dislodge [whiteness] from its centrality and authority,” but that it might lead to a new type of “assertiveness” (10). Dyer also identifies guilt as a problem. He does think that the solution is to acknowledge the wrongs, but not allow guilt to become a block since the display of guilt expresses a “fine moral character” (11). Guilt becomes an expression of what whites are and by implication that others do not have such “fine moral character.”

Further on Dyer explores the use of film in asserting whiteness, which he precedes this with the role of photography in asserting and affirming the construct of whiteness. He explains the historical belief that photography could reveal the inner nature of a person (104). He also discusses eugenics before and after discussions on early ideas of whiteness related to high morals, purity, higher thinking (in males, not females). As well Dyer talks about the importance of lighting and positioning the white person in photography and other imagery. What interested me in this passage was the insertion of the term eugenics. Photography “was a central tool of the eugenics movement, whose focus was the improvement of the human race through control of breeding” (105). This passage is a direct reminder of a piece I titled Hitler Would Love You (2009). The inspiration for the piece comes from an image similar to the following that I had seen on the Internet. Both HWLY and the source image also refer to sight (which Dyer also delves into with a discussion on the primacy of sight and its contradictions).

Eye colour chart. (Know the source? Please contact me.)
Eye colour chart. (Know the source? Please contact me.)
H.W.L.Y., 2009, Human hair, glass, ply, plaster, acrylic
H.W.L.Y., 2009, Human hair, glass, ply, plaster, acrylic

Choosing/selecting a person, as meeting a standard of worthiness, based on eye and hair colour as an indication of their “fine moral character” is absurd. (Also brings to mind the work of Michael Euyung Oh and his arbitrary choices.)

How can whiteness be deconstructed without turning the discussion into a massive cosmic hole? How can whiteness be shown to be a marked position and at the same time remove racial labels? How can each person, regardless of the race they identify with, feel dignity without being barricaded by guilt or pride?


1 Richard Dyer explains his uncomfortable use of the terms “white” and “non-white”: see the sub-section titled “The Politics of Looking at Whiteness” in White, London: Routledge, 1997, middle of page 11.


Dyer, Richard. White. London: Routledge, 1997. Print.