Scholars of whiteness divide between affirming a positive white identity and abolishing whiteness entirely

Evidence

What is at issue here is the very meaning of “race” and its status in contemporary culture, whether local, national, or global. It is hard to reconcile Carter’s suggestion that the way forward is to “develop a positive nonracist White racial identity ego status” (Carter 1997:207) with the perspective of historian Roediger, who quotes James Baldwin as saying: “As long as you think you’re white, there’s no hope for you” (Roediger, 1998:22). — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 769

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Maps the core tension inside whiteness studies: identity-affirming versus identity-abolishing positions, useful for defining whiteness as an analytic category.
  • QUESTION: Worth chasing which side of this Carter vs. Roediger/Baldwin divide vault sources take on whiteness as an identity vs. a structure.
  • XREF: connects to: Whiteness studies split irreconcilably over whether white identity can be redeemed; Whiteness scholars disagree fundamentally and are not automatically in dialogue — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 768; White critique faces a double bind that disaffiliation from whiteness cannot simply resolve — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 781 (+1 more)

Broader Connections