2.2. WHITENESS AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
2.3.1. Social reproduction of whiteness via education
At its simplest level socialisation through education can be thought of as a process which teaches individuals the ways of the society they were born into, connecting the generations in the process (Giddens, 1993). Several scholars have pointed to the particularly important role of schools as socialising agents in society (Apple, 1995;
Epstein & Johnston, 1998; Giddens, 1993; Jansen, 2009; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Measor
& Sikes, 1992; Randall, 1982; Smith & Paul, 2000).
While the development of mass schooling has been closely linked to the ideals of equality and democracy there is agreement that education has not in fact been a powerful influence towards either. As agents of socialisation schools prepare individuals for different economic and social positions that force them into different spaces. As schools do so they typically side with those who already have power and privilege since it is they who already control education and schooling (Apple, 1995; Bourdieu, 1986, 1988; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Epstein & Johnston, 1998; Illich, 1973; Willis, 1997). My
interrogation of the educational spaces of my experience makes it clear that during the colonial and apartheid periods it was whites who, being in control of education and schooling, ensured that it was they who benefitted from the provision thereof.
Bowles and Gintis (1976) argue that western schooling has expanded largely in response to the needs of modern capitalism. Schools consequently teach particular social and technical skills which are required by industry in a particular society. Pupils are prepared for relations of control and obedience in the workplace. While certain individuals move into ‘achievement’ or ‘success’ positions most people end up in lower paid positions. Bowles and Gintis (1976) contend, this being the case, that schools effectively legitimate existing inequalities and limit the personal development of many of those who pass through their hands. As preparation for the workplace takes place, schools play the additional custodial role of keeping children in a waiting capacity until they are old enough to start work (Illich, 1973). In their teaching, furthermore, schools teach for an uncritical acceptance of the existing social order and they do so via the kind of discipline and regimentation they set in place. The hidden curriculum is important here since it serves, when all is said and done, to teach children to accept their place in life (Illich, 1973). It is for this reason that Illich (1973) came out so strongly in favour of the deschooling of society. My interrogation of the educational spaces in the three southern African spaces of my experience makes it clear that it was whites, including myself, who were socialised into the ‘achievement’ positions required by capitalism while Africans, and Indians and coloureds to a lesser degree, were schooled into an acceptance of lesser jobs and of their lot in life.
While Bowles and Gintis (1976) have led the way in interrogating links between schooling and the work force needs of capitalism, Bourdieu (1986, 1988) has pioneered the theoretical perspective of cultural reproduction. Schools play a key role, through both the formal and hidden curricula, in the teaching of values, attitudes, norms, dispositions and modes of language. They reinforce variations in outlooks and values of a cultural nature which children begin to acquire in early life. Children of dominant groups benefit from being able to cash in their cultural capital in order to purchase privilege and advantage. Epstein and Johnson (1998) add a clarifying note when they suggest that the defining features of hegemonic culture are typically embedded in the rituals, practices, presumptions and expectations of schools, in addition to what they teach formally in the classrooms and on the sports fields. Over time children internalise
what they learn and they become malleable as adults and conform easily to the requirements of those with power and influence in society.
In concurring with these positions articulated by Bowles &Gintis (1976) and Bourdieu (1986; 1988), Giroux (1983) that schools are also reproductive in a political sense. They can be viewed as part of a dominant state apparatus and produce and legitimate the economic and ideological imperatives that underlie the state’s ideological power.
It is appropriate, given the focus of this thesis, to consider how schooling can operate to sustain whiteness in particular. In building on the notion that schools typically side with those with power and privilege, as mentioned above, it is the contention of many scholars that schooling in western countries is on the side of whiteness. Schools are used by whites to promote whiteness as an invisible, universal norm (Beddard, 2000;
Berry, 1995; Gillborn, 2006; hooks, 1989, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1998; McIntosh, 1990;
Parker & Stovall, 2004; Rodriguez, 1998; Solomon et al., 2005; Yosso, 2006). Key to them being able to do so is that they operate within a liberal multi-cultural education paradigm.
A defining feature of this paradigm is that racism is regarded as no longer existing in western countries and that conditions of social equality are firmly in place (hooks, 1994;
Ladson-Billings, 1998). This being the case “…school instruction is conceived as a generic set of teaching skills that should work for all students” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p.
19). The knowledge production, curriculum and general school policies and practices that lie behind this ‘generic set of teaching skills’ constitutes an unseen education norm which is that of the dominant group(s) in society which needs to maintain its position of power and influence (hooks, 1989; Tate, 1997; Wise, 2008; Yosso, 2006). A strong focus on the individual deflects attention away from such structural considerations since individuals are taught that they succeed in life through their own endeavours alone.
While the diversity made up of individual differences is celebrated within the multi- cultural paradigm it is only ever in a superficial way. It is a requirement, furthermore, that individuals who differ from the invisible cultural norm should, if they wish to succeed, be assimilated so that they are brought into a state of conformity with it. In the process their own cultural heritage is seen in deficit terms (Gillborn, 2006; hooks, 1989;
Ladson-Billings, 1998; McIntosh, 1990; Semali, 1998; Solomon et al., 2005; Yosso, 2006). This is developed further on.
While it is indeed the case that in western societies schools are used by whites to promote whiteness it is more accurate to say that it is bourgeois whiteness which shapes and informs the schooling process (hooks, 1989; Yosso, 2006). As Yosso, (2006, p. 168) puts it “…it is the knowledge of the upper and middle classes which is considered to have capital value in a hierarchal society”. The reference here is to specific forms of knowledge as well as skills and abilities which are valued by upper and middle class whites. Children who fail to measure up to the required standards need to be brought into a state of conformity. Non-white children, in particular, are seen as a threat to education standards until they have conformed and assimilation programmes are intended to bring them up to standard (Gillborn, 2006; Hayes & Juarez, 2009;
hooks, 1989; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Leonardo, 2004; McIntosh, 1990; Scheurich, 1993;
Solomon et al., 2005; Yosso, 2006).
hooks (1989, p. 113) adds to an understanding of what is required when she states that
“…assimilation is a strategy deeply rooted in the ideology of white supremacy and its advocates urge black people to negate their blackness, to imitate white people so as to better absorb their values, their way of life”. In the process, non-whites are made highly visible and are distinctly racialised while whites remain invisible, unraced and centred (Gillborn, 2006; Hayes & Juarez, 2009; hooks, 1989; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Leonardo, 2004; McIntosh, 1990; Scheurich, 1993; Solomon et al., 2005; Yosso, 2006).
It follows from the above that multi-cultural education, “…mired in liberal ideology as it is” (Tate, 1997, p. 25) offers no challenge to the current racial order in society. In fact, it reinforces it (Beddard, 2000; Crenshaw, 1995; Gillborn, 2006; hooks, 1989; Parker &
Stovall, 2004; Tate, 1997). The situation is aggravated by the fact that it is invariably the case in western countries that growing numbers of non-white children are taught by a teaching corps which is predominantly white. There is thus often a cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and racial divide between teachers and the children they teach (McIntosh, 1990).
In their training white teachers are typically taught according to white norms (Ladson- Billings, 1998; McIntosh, 1990; Solomon et al., 2005). It is often the case that teachers therefore fail to critically engage with the teaching situations in which they find themselves, least of all with their own whiteness (Ladson-Billings, 1998; McIntosh, 1990; Solomon et al., 2005).
So it is that Wise (2008, p. 19), in reflecting on some of his own schooling experiences in the USA, reports that he was simply expected to uncritically accept the white world of his teachers. He notes that:
The curriculum was almost completely Eurocentric, by which I mean shot through with the perspectives of persons of European descent, to the exclusion of pretty much all others. Worse still was the implicit assumption that the white lens through which subject matter was to be viewed was not a narrowly focused one, even a myopic one, but rather a universally valid tool for observing reality.
In reflecting on the nature of the American school experience in more recent times Wise (2008) contends that nothing much has changed. Wise (2008, p. 19) notes that:
when it comes to History textbooks and Literature reading lists much about them looks exactly as it did 20 years ago…they remain top heavy with white folks’ narratives, with a scattering of ‘others ‘ thrown in ‘ but more as an add- on than as part of the nation’s collective story.
In colonial settings, meanwhile, bourgeois whites manipulated schooling powerfully in order to suit their needs and interests as colonial occupiers. Essentially these centred on their presence and control being legitimated (Bondesio, 1990; Lopez, 2005; Said, 1978; Shome, 1999; Thompson, 1981). I discuss this in detail in due course in respect of the colonial presence in Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and South Africa but it is appropriate to indicate here that schooling provision was strongly biased in favour of whites while Africans and their culture were distinctly marginalised. In some instances Africans were not even to considered to be worth educating.
It is significant to record that in former colonies a ‘lingering heritage of whiteness’ in education has persisted well into the period following independence. Shome (1999), for example, has reported on strong European influences on curricula in many colonial settings, not least her native India, while Amin (2004), Chisholm (2004), Vandeyer (2008), and Wa Azania (2014) have written of the hold that whiteness continues to exert in South African schools. This is picked up again later in this thesis.
It is important to recognize, however, that schools can both reproduce and produce knowledge (Apple, 1995), or as Giroux (1983, p. 6) puts it “…schools bear the marks of both resistance and reproduction”. Pupils, “…are not passive internalisers of pre-given social messages” (Apple, 1995, p. 13). Within schools, complex informal school cultures exist and these can become cultures of resistance. In taking this further, Giroux (1983,
p. 5) explains that it is essential to recognize that within schools there are “…complex and creative fields of resistance through which class, race and gender mediated practices often refuse, reject and dismiss the central messages of schools”. Such resistance produces ‘alternative knowledge’ which is in keeping with Foucault’s (1980) notion that power in society is not simply a matter of who does what to whom. Rather, power circulates through an entire society, even if it is not equally distributed.
Resistance in schools typically takes the form of students engaging in oppositional behaviour even if doing so consigns them to a position of class subordination and political defeat (Apple, 1995; Giroux, 1983; Willis, 1997). Such behaviour is engaged in by students who see schooling as being unable to offer them anything worthwhile. They feel themselves to be alienated from its culture and seek to align themselves with, and strengthen, their own alternative culture. It is often a working class phenomenon and varies in the degree to which it is overt and openly confrontational (Apple, 1995). Willis’
(1997) study of ‘the lads’ in Birmingham is informative of the kind of behaviour that can be involved. It is interesting to note as well that ‘the lads’ were working class boys who went on to occupy working class jobs after school due to their poor school performance.
It is important to add that a different kind of resistance to the central messages of schooling centres on the lead that teachers and adults can take. In this regard it is appropriate to consider what has been forthcoming in the fields of Critical Racist Theory (CRT) and Anti-Racism as they have been applied to schooling. Both contend strongly that the neutrality, colourblindness (the pretence of not seeing colour) and meritocracy embedded in the multicultural education paradigm are mere “…camouflages for the self- interest of powerful entities in society” (Tate, 1997, p. 235) and excuses for not having to see the consequences of colour (Wise, 2008). For both CRT and Anti-Racism the intention is that instead of educating individuals into the logic of white domination and conforming to it there should be a focus on the development of critical consciousness (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Cohen et al., 2007; Freire, 1970a, 1970b, 1996, 1998; Giroux, 1997a; hooks, 1989; McLaren, 1995, 1998; Tate, 1997; Wise, 2008). hooks (1989, p.
52) sees such a conceptualisation of education “…as the practice of freedom as opposed to education as the practice of domination”. A critical pedagogy is involved, a pedagogy whose aim is to “…unveil the rhetorical, political, cultural, and social mechanisms through which whiteness is both invented and used to mask its power and privilege” (Giroux, 1997a, p. 102).
CRT was first developed in the USA in the 1970s by scholars who had become frustrated by the slow pace of racial reform. Ladson-Billings (1998) indicates that there are roots in Critical Legal Studies and that there is also a link with the work of Gramsci (1971a) and his thinking around the nature of hegemony. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) are cited by Morris (2006) for having introduced CRT to the educational field.
CRT in education brings race to the centre of critical inquiry as it seeks to undermine the dominant ideology of whiteness and secure a future based on social justice principles (Crenshaw, 1995; Delgado, 1995a; Dixon & Rousseau, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Solorzano, 1998; Solorzano & Yosso, 2002; Tate, 1997). As a theoretical and analytical framework CRT in education challenges ways in which race and racism affect the structures of education and educational discourses and practices. As a social justice project CRT in education aims to secure the liberatory potential of schooling (Yosso, 2006).
A defining feature of the methodology of CRT in education is the recognition of the experiential knowledge of non-whites as being “…legitimate, appropriate, and critical to understanding, analysing and teaching about racial subordination (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 26). Delgado (1989, 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1996) has played a leading role in this. He observes that “…oppressed groups have known instinctively that stories are an essential tool to their own survival and liberation” (Delgado, 1989, p. 2436). Critical Race scholars working in the field of education have built on this. They have argued that such stories generate new knowledge which is able to challenge the monovocal master narrative of whiteness (Delgado, 1989; hooks, 1989, 1990; Lincoln, 1993; Solorzano &
Yosso, 2002). Yosso (2006) speaks of the experiential knowledge of oppressed peoples as contained in their stories as constituting their cultural capital. Not only does such capital challenge whiteness and help to undermine it, it also gives oppressed peoples hope and helps them to dream of a better future for themselves (Yosso, 2006). Such capital is taken with them when they enter classrooms. When they are taught within a framework which conceptualises education as the ‘practice of freedom’ (hooks, 1989) so their capital becomes valued and they are affirmed (Delgado, 1989; Duncan, 2006;
Giroux, 1997a; hooks, 1989, 1990; Lincoln, 1993; Yosso, 2006).
Anti-Racist education has emerged as a corollary to CRT beyond the USA. Gillborn (2006) observes that its early credentials were established by scholars such as Carby
(1982), Mullard, (1982, 1984), Troyna (1984, 1987, 1988, 1998) and Sivanandan, (2000). As with CRT, the main thrust of Anti-Racist education is that education systems are regarded as being inherently racist in respect of knowledge production and dissemination, curriculum development and the organisation and practice of schooling.
The ultimate aim of Anti-Racist Education is to expose the degree to which education systems have been and are so heavily infused by whiteness (Calliste, 2000; Dei, 2000;
Gillborn, 2006). A key objective is to centre everyone and to do so via interactive and cooperative learning strategies that teach critical thinking skills which focus on a questioning of the status quo (Dei, 2000). Liberal multi-culturalism is strongly criticised.
In sharp contrast to multi-culturalism “…Anti-Racism explicitly names the issues of race and social difference as issues of power and equity rather than as matters of cultural and ethnic variety” (Dei, 2000, p. 27).
Critical pedagogy is the thread that links CRT and Anti-Racism. It has been mentioned that such a pedagogy is a liberatory pedagogy in that an important goal is to free both whites and non-whites from hegemonic whiteness (Beddard, 2000; Giroux, 1998;
hooks, 1989; McIntosh, 1990). Such a pedagogy seeks to create space for both whites and non-whites to reconstruct their identities. It is particularly important for whites to be able “…to deconstruct their identities and decolonise their minds, creating an identity that does not rely on the bodies of non-white people but creates an oppositional space to fight for equality and social justice” (Beddard, 2000, p. 41). hooks (1989) is supportive of this and argues the case for the writing and sharing of stories in identity reconstruction. Messner (2000, p. 467) agrees and states that stories can be a powerful way of accomplishing “…the unpacking of white privilege”. This is a theme I pick up later in this thesis.
It is appropriate, at this juncture, to indicate that while the primary interest of my study is with the role of formal education in producing my whiteness the place of ‘public pedagogy’ also needs to be acknowledged, for socialisation is greatly impacted by it.
Giroux (2005) speaks of public pedagogy as the learning which is sourced in a collection of ideological and institutional forces which together make up the cultural domain which is instrumental in the formation of attitudes, values and identities. Within this cultural domain there are various public pedagogy sites such as television networks, sports and entertainment media, advertising media and social media which between them are able to exert a very strong hold over the socialisation process.
‘Conversation’ is central to the kind of learning that takes in realm of public pedagogy (Blyth, 2008; Jeffs & Smith, 2005; Zeldin, 1999). Blyth (2008, p. 4) defines conversation as it is intended here as “…the spontaneous business of making connections”, those between people and ideas as well as those between people and places. In the process of such conversation experience is explored and enlarged and people are influenced, often in unpredictable ways.
Democracy and social justice are desirable primary outcomes of public pedagogy (Giroux, 2005; Jeffs & Smith, 2005; Sennett, 2012). This is invariably not the case, however. Giroux (2005), for example, decries the fact that at the present time in western countries public pedagogy has become so strongly aligned with, and expressive of, neoliberal politics, that democracy and social justice have suffered in the process. Later, in Chapter 6, I make reference to the degree to which I was influenced by public pedagogy in the three southern African geopolitical spaces of my experience and of how the influence of the same, being so strongly supportive of on-going white supremacy, severely undermined democracy and social justice in those spaces.
All the more reason, for scholars such as Austin and Hickey (2008); Giroux (1994, 2005) ; Gutman (1999); Freire (1998) and hooks (1994), that formal spheres of learning need to intervene so as to provide students with the ability to engage critically with the society in which they live. This is precisely where critical pedagogy, which has been referred to above, has such an important role to play.
2.3.2. The spatial ‘turn’ that enhances the sociological understanding of my socialisation