So this is something I have meant to write for a while but haven't been 100% sure how to tackle...
It is a controversial so please comment and disagree and let's debate!
Whiteliness is a term coined by philosophers to describe a way of being and acting that can be quite separate from being white. As male and masculine are different. So being white and whiteliness are different.
A couple of months ago there was an afternoon seminar on "being white in SA" at Wits... So off I went (with 2 of my similarly pale colleagues). This is where I first heard the term whiteliness.
Basically whiteliness is an attitude of I am right, my way is right, my language is right and it is also a habit of expectation. Of being treated a certain way. It stems from an imbalance of power that has in history favored white people.
I don't know if I am making this clear... But it resonates with me! Despite the fact that I don't think I am pushy or in your face or racist or arrogant I know I have an expectation of how I should be treated.
I do think my language is best- of course it is, English is a universally accepted language.
I expect good service- but I should because we all deserve to be treated well.
I think having a tertiary education is how it should be done- but of course it is because it
gives people the best opportunities, doesn't it...
These seem innocuous things but it is an underlying, deeply ingrained attitude of being right. More and more I think that these typically accepted things are not necessarily best but are only thought to be best because of this previous history of power imbalances.
I guess practically... What do we do with this?
Firstly I would suggest examine our attitudes towards what is right... Just because it is generally accepted as best it may not be!
I again urge you to get to know people who are different- co our, religion, culture...find out what they think, deep down.
And as much as we embrace being white, let's step away from whiteliness.
Let's listen, let's be humble, let's learn.
I read your blog on loud Americans (the bane of my existence for the past two years has been the loud, insensitive Portuguese people who inhabit the neighboring hotel for extended periods) and I wonder if we are sometimes seen as that? Loud and "space-up-taking" - we have a similar sense of confidence related to being white and having easy access to what we deem rights but really are privileges.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about the whiteliness talk quite a bit - more so since we figured out the mystery behind the disappearing bread (incidentally, I've had a similar thing in my home, instead it was not disappearing bread but disappearing ice cream). It made me wonder about the regard we have for each other, as work colleagues, as spouses, generally as human beings inhabiting the same spaces.
While there is no doubt in my mind that we sometimes do behave in a way that is colored by a world view that OUR way is the only right way, I think that all of us, regardless of our race or gender or age or world view behave in selfish ways with no regard for others. Which is why we eat someone else's bread without asking or letting them know that we have and without replacing it before it is finished.
I agree with you that we need to be much more sensitive to and mindful of each other, but I think it spans a bit wider than just Whiteliness. Being aware of our whitely ways is one starting point. Another is to have regard for everyone else, especially those with whom we share spaces.
I fully agree with the attitude / s described by the term “whiteliness”. However I find the term “Whiteliness” highly offensive, if not racist. If we dig a little deeper into the origins of English speaking South Africans with British ancestry we will see that many of our views originate from a sense of superiority that developed as the British Empire expanded across the world. Unfortunately the colour of one’s skin is the most obvious difference between people.
ReplyDeleteEvery cultural group/nation tends to view other cultural groups as inferior in some way or another.
English see the French as rude.
French see the English as uncultured.
Xhosas see the Zulus as aggressive.
My point is that we are still focused on race in this country despite apartheid ending in 1994. Think how stupid it is that the colour of one’s skin determines ones chances of getting a job or picked for a representative sports team. It’s time that South Africa and South African’s move away from focusing on race and more onto the social and economic problems that challenge all of us.
Education is the single biggest weapon in the face of prejudice. As South Africans we need to continue explore and embrace our history and find ways of redressing the wrongs of the past without punishing innocent people now. If we can learn anything from South Africa’s history is that focusing on race tends to separate people. Let’s focus on our social and cultural differences and learn to understand them.
Andrew
Hi Kathy
ReplyDeleteYour writing is thought provoking; I know you are focussing on SA but hegemony which I suppose is what you are talking about, is rampant be it based on skin colour, gender, race, nationality, West/East, North/South etc.
I struggle with my own west-centric training and I need to find alternative visions, discourses and strategies.
Watching this space
Would love to hear your voice on the Politics for OT fb page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/115778758532738/
Read piece below and saw similarities in your writing
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
Radhika x
Thanks for comments!
ReplyDeleteSo many things to think about and unpack...
Firstly... Thanks Radhika for the link to that blog. It is very interesting and talks about white privilege in a way that I think eloquently captures an aspect of whiteliness.
Matty- thanks for your comment about being loud and space taking as an aspect of whiteliness. I think that is very insightful...and makes me think about the speaker at the whiteliness seminar who suggested silence as a response to our white history. What do you think?
Andrew- glad you found my blog and thanks for commenting. Cool to hear your opinions and thoughts...
In response to your comment about whiteliness being an offensive term I'd like to challenge you and ask whether you'd be offended if I described your actions as masculine? Similar concepts... I know that I have a sense of privilege that is based on my paleness and I think the term whiteliness attempts to explain it. Maybe it would be helpful to hear why you find it offensive?
Secondly about moving beyond race... Ideally I agree with you but I don't think we are at a place where we can. I don't think ignoring issues makes them any smaller. And race is an issue in SA. Shouldn't still be, but it is!!! And I think one of the first steps in sorting out racism and race discrepancies is by talking about them, confronting them. I do think we need to redress wrongs. And one of the ways that I think we as white SA's need to do this ( and that includes us who weren't actively advocating apartheid) is by admitting our privilege. Admitting our indirect role in SA past. Admitting how we have benefitted.
Controversial I know...
What do you think?
Pleaase excuse this poor bit of writing...
ReplyDeleteI think i didn’t make my point clear…
I think you are grouping a couple of issues under the term ‘whiteliness’.
1. Sense of privilege. “I know that I have a sense of privilege that is based on my paleness”
Not a sense of superiority as you originally put in the blog?
2. White Guilt. At causing the wrongs and benefiting from the wrongs of apartheid.
I will try to deal with the 2 points separately but 1st a response to the question: ‘would I be offended is you described my actions as masculine?’ Definitely not I am a man and happy to be seen as a man, I celebrate my masculinity. Do I think I am better than women? No. If I did I could be described as chauvinist.
So back to the original question why do I find the term ‘whiteliness ‘offensive? By definition you are describing a attitudes and expectations by race. By doing this you allow all sorts of descriptions to be labelled by race. It’s not a big step to go from saying, ‘his sense of superiority come from being white’ to saying ‘she has no sense of time and is always late because she is black’.
So let me refer back to the original 2 issues I identified.
Let’s unpack the idea that you feel a sense of privilege because of your paleness. Where did you gain or learn this sense of privilege? Most likely the basis of it comes from your parents and then you would have been influenced by your school mates. I had a similar upbringing to you and went to the same school. Do I sometimes feel a sense of superiority when meeting other people? Unfortunately I do but I generally I have these feelings relating to education, moral values or attitudes.
We learnt these values primarily from our parents who of European descent as did most of our friends. Some of those values (stereotypes) included a sense of superiority over the Afrikaans nation. These values have nothing to do with race but more to do with history. In fact I see one of the traits that you describe as “an attitude of I am right, my way is right, my language is right” as a product of being of English descent.
2nd concept White Guilt
Firstly I acknowledge that I may have benefitted indirectly from apartheid policies but do I feel guilty about it? Not at all, I had no way of choosing my place of birth, my family or my race.
Kathy do you suffer from white guilt? Do you feel guilty about having benefitted indirectly from apartheid? As a person with a German heritage do you feel guilty about the murder of over 6 million jews? You shouldn’t you have no control over your heritage. It’s a waste of energy to feel guilty.
My point is, that defining attitudes and values by race, is making the same mistakes of the past by categorising people according to race. Categorising something by race is exactly what the apartheid government sought to do. Even if you do it positively to identify traits or trends that cause problems in society.
One of the best moments I experienced in Kenya was when I explained to a street vender that I wasn’t from England and that I was from South Africa. Suddenly we were African brothers and the prices and service changed. Race wasn’t an issue but heritage was.
Our Eurocentric upbringing had and influence on us I agree, but defining it by race is racist by definition.
Andrew
Kath: glad you've posted this! Controversial topic for sure, so make sure you're wearing some armour! One of top thinkers in SA on educating white people for social justice, Jonathan Jansen, says that you've got to treat white people gently when it comes to this topic, otherwise they will respond with rage. So if you get any rageful responses - you're in good company!
ReplyDeleteThis "whiteliness" attitude reminds me of an observation that a Youth for Christ camp director made to me a few years back. The YFC camps were always inter-racial, with English being the most common language, but often we'd sing songs in local languages too. The observation was this: "Whenever we form groups on our camps and give them something to do or talk about, it's always the white kids who take charge." As at YFC, so in society: white people continue to dominate in South Africa (over 90% of CEO's in SA are white - still!).
Welcome to Kath's blog, Andrew! :) Most of what I write next is a response to your comments.
Acknowledging that there is such a thing as "race" is not racist by definition. The definition of racism is prejudice plus power. Acknowledging that there is such a thing as "whiteness" which exists to privilege one group of people over and above others is not racist; it's social analysis.
Andrew argues against white guilt. Others make the argument too. I think that just as post World War Two Germans should have felt ashamed of their country and heritage, so there is an appropriate level of shame that white South Africans should feel about our collective past (regardless of if we think we "didn't benefit from Apartheid", which we all did, but that's another conversation). The purpose of this shame is to galvanise us to re-think our assumptions, to wonder how our parents' generation got it so wrong, and to do something about it wherever we are every day, in big and small ways. Getting lost in shame isn't the point; to allow it to transform us is. I don't think Germans will ever fully detach themselves from the horror of what the Nazis did; this detachment is in fact impossible - and correctly so, because it is exactly that self-awareness that gives the reminder of "Never again." As for South African whites: "Never again." Has our demographic adequately learnt that lesson and inculcated it in our daily lives? I think not. Not yet. Becoming conversant with the aims of "whiteliness" is one way to keep the conversation (and learning) going.
>Categorising something by race is exactly what the apartheid government sought to do.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's correct, but it's not the whole story. The goal of the racial classification was then to affect the social order (i.e. forced removals, pass laws, etc) which forced South African society into first class citizens (i.e. whites), second class citizens (i.e. the coloureds: not black enough to be black, but not white enough to be white) and the bottom of the pile (the blacks).
So it's not racial classification that is necessarily problematic: it's what it is done for. What if we classified people by race with the intention of bringing about greater justice in the social order? Then we could have some meaningful data, and be able to say, "This year 300,000 previously third class citizens were able to get jobs and sustain themselves for the first time in their lives." That way we have a qualitative way of addressing the (still existing) imbalances of the past. Yes, the intention is to get to a point when we can throw those racial categories away, but until the economic and social problems that challenge us all (as Andrew pointed out) are solved, we can't do that. This is why, as flawed as it is (and it could only ever BE flawed), I fully agree both with Affirmative Action and Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment. They are attempting to systemically redress an imbalance.
I completely agree with what Andrew says here: "Education is the single biggest weapon in the face of prejudice." Education has helped free the oppressed, no doubt about it - see Paulo Freire's Pedagogy for the Oppressed which is of great value to the oppressed, because the goal of educating them is to become free.
What about the oppressors, then? What must they be educated about? They can't be taught to be free - because they already are! They need to be taught to regain what they have lost, and what oppressors have lost is the ability to be fully human - because when you oppress someone else, you lose a little bit of your humanity. We (I place myself in the oppressor category, because I am white and male) need to learn about why we think our language and culture is superior, why our ancestors have behaved like they could do what the hell they liked ("We have guns! And civilization! And God is on our side!") and why we expect other people to assimilate to us, rather than the other way around.
We need a pedagogy (i.e. an approach to education) for the oppressor (i.e. those people who are historically part of oppressor groups). This is what Danya's masters thesis is all about.
Glad you've responded to other comments - I hope I get a response too Kath!
Silence
ReplyDeleteI think at the silence Samantha Vice spoke of is a very difficult concept. One of the first objections to silence that came to mind then (and was raised by others at the talk) is that silence will allow corruption and other wrongdoings to happen unfettered and thus automatically to increase. We (and by that I mean ALL South Africans) can ill afford that. And so, whites are very loud and vociferous in their criticism of amongst others, the ANC, Julius, the government, etc. hoping to prevent injustice.
Unfortunately, it seems that the criticism from whites aimed at curbing injustice is not perceived as such. A vivid example to me was posts on the secrecy bill. Max du Preez, on his FB page last week, posted commentary about the secrecy bill which expressed strong opposition to it. And of course many others commented on his post, some black people but mostly white, supporting what Max was saying. One black guy, who on his FB page publishes his strong support and loyalty to the ANC, accused Max and the whites of criticizing the government and the ANC etc. just for the sake of criticism and of course accused them of racism (which seems to be the default position many people in South Africa take: accuse the others of racism because that immediately invalidates/devalues their opinion, regardless of the importance of their opinion or the validity thereof).
In this dude's criticism, to me, lies the point Samantha Vice was trying to make: others cannot hear us, because there is too much noise - the noise of racism, the noise of the injustices most whites in South Africa allowed to happen under Apartheid (without much resistance), the noise of the the benefit whites got from the oppression of blacks under Apartheid, the noise of the fact that insufficient restitution has been made post-Apartheid, etc. etc. Because of this noise, our criticism (however justified it may be and with whatever attitude we make it) is automatically grouped with the voices of the real right-winged racists. Sixteen years down the line we have not established our bona fides and we are still indistinguishable to the majority of people who suffered terribly under Apartheid, who cannot see us for who we (think?) we are, past the noise.
And so, what I think Samantha Vice was trying to say is that we have to trust our black brothers and sisters to criticize the injustices. Which they can only do if we are quiet and allow them the chance to do, the leadership fight between Atoll Trollop and Lindiwe Mazibuko being a case in point.
And yes, I am also afraid that they won't, or that they are so steeped in a culture of respect for elders that they will not challenge the elders when the elders are clearly doing wrong (as some of our country's leaders have stated and indeed expected). As an Afrikaans-speaking South African I know all too well the dangers of such a culture - see where that culture got us under Apartheid! (Of course, being Afrikaans is another invalidating measure :)!)
I do not think that we have to be completely silent. We should just not be the first to complain or have our say. But we should not be altogether silent - we should support our black brothers and sisters and stand with them (not they with us).
Just another addition to the silence thing: in 1987 Madiba met with Niel Barnard, the then head of the apartheid regime's national intelligence service. Instead of grandstanding his anger by cursing and insulting and showing his bitterness, he beguiled them into negotiating the freedom we now have. I think Afriforum et al have much to learn from Madiba (if they could).
ReplyDeleteAnd therein, to me, lies another key, instead of shouting and screaming at the top of our lungs, we need to take a leaf from Madiba's book and be more strategic and a lot more cunningly wise! Let's shush for a change and look for the strategic way of dealing with things QUIETLY. That way we cannot embarrass anyone (including ourselves) and by not embarrassing anyone, we are less likely to alienate and more likely to gain their ears and possibly even loyalty/support.
Sorry for the radio silence... Trying to get my head around the end of year and it has been hectic!
ReplyDeleteWow... Too much to comment on, so going to do some main points:
White guilt vs white shame. I think there is a difference. I agree with you Andrew that as we were personally not responsible for apartheid we don't need to feel guilt about it but I do think there is a place for shame.
Andrew challenged me about my grandparents being Germans, who were responsible for the death of 6 million Jews during the holocaust. I agree that I had nothing to do with this do I can't feel guilt but I do feel shame for what was done by my ancestors.
In the same way I do think shame is an appropriate reaction to apartheid by white people. I personally didn't enact any of the laws but I benefit from it daily and have done for as long as I have lived in SA. I am also ashamed that it was " my people", white people that thought up, enforced and lived out apartheid. I am ashamed that when I could go anywhere I wanted and do anything I wanted during apartheid years, my husband Philippe couldn't. I am ashamed that my family could live anywhere but Philippe's family could only stay in a coloured area. I am ashamed that I went to a good well resourced white school but Philippe couldn't.
I think shame is appropriate because we have a past in this country that is shameful.
I agree with Rogers comments that we haven't sufficiently changed in our attitudes yet. Despite our non- racism and we preach that loudly that isn't the heart of people. I read an interesting quote yesterday that said that the new racism is worse than the old because it advertises itself as non- racist but is smiling and two faced about the other party. And that is why we need to talk about these things and get them out there. I don't think pretending people aren't white or black makes anything better. I also think we need to unpack our attitudes... I am sorry if the term whiteliness offends... But maybe that is good.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it offend?
Is it cos it hits a nerve or because it is easier to ignore a attitude in ourselves than address it...
I also agree that education is the key. I guess mainly cos it breaks down social barriers. Barriers that are largely racial in SA. But it's not enough in my Opinion. I think Rog touched on it a bit... We need to change attitudes... How do we do that? I think Rog suggested a new pedagogy. Agreed but I don't think only for the oppressors. I think for everyone.
I am still struggling with how we do this?
I suggest relationship and examining ourselves but I am not sure how else practically?
Any ideas?
Interesting debate! Has given me much to think about. About the term itself...
ReplyDelete"Whiteliness is a term coined by philosophers to describe a way of being and acting that can be quite separate from being white."
Does that mean the term can be applied to persons of other races?
"Basically whiteliness is an attitude of I am right, my way is right, my language is right and it is also a habit of expectation."
I've met people like this, and while many of them are white as this is the group I was most likely to meet growing up as a white South African, I don't believe that this attitude is confined to any one racial group. More prominent, possibly, but it is not unique to white South Africans.
The attitude absolutely does exist, but can it be described using a different term? One that has less danger of stereotyping a racial group?
Thanks for your comment Greer. Good thing about the blog is I have time to think and formulate a (semi coherent) reply...
ReplyDeleteI am sure there could be a more expansive term that encompasses this attitude without classifying it as a purely racial thing. Maybe privileged?
I guess though that I want to challenge us whiteys out of our complacency and sense of rightness.
I am scared if we separate the term frm the race aspect people will think it doesn't apply to them?
What do you think?