Whiteness studies expanded rapidly and lost its radical edge

Evidence

Just as it is difficult to describe the kind of sensory disorientation produced by the sculptures of Anish Kapoor, so it is hard at this point to delineate this new phenomenon of “whiteness studies” or “white critique,” as some call it, which continues to expand at an exponential rate. What was recently perceived to be a radical and potentially subversive turn towards new perspectives on raciology and its effects can be described as something of a bandwagon to be jumped on by a host of writers anxious to explore their particular disciplinary take on the idea of whiteness. Given the proliferation of this work and the increasing difficulty of tracking its every direction, I intend to take issue with the field as a whole, without claiming to do justice to the key players. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 747

Categorization

• XREF: This skeptical assessment of whiteness studies as a bandwagon qualifies how racial-formation and CRT definitions tend to treat critical whiteness scholarship in the vault. — connects to: Whiteness studies grew so rapidly that it shifted from subversive to bandwagon status. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 747
• QUESTION: Named reading purpose prioritizes definitional grounding; the claim that whiteness studies became a diluted bandwagon is contestable and worth tracking against later critiques.

Broader Connections

• Whiteness studies grew so rapidly that it shifted from subversive to bandwagon status. #corroborates (0.95) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 747