Whiteness studies split irreconcilably over whether white identity can be redeemed

Evidence

The point about these fundamental disagreements is not that they are surprising or unexpected, although it is distressing that the conservatism that argues that whiteness is still an integral aspect of a “nonracist” identity is in danger of diluting the radicalism that painstakingly provides evidence of the making of whiteness as a social category and the possibility of its unmaking. The scholars and activists who now address whiteness as a means to understand and analyze inequality, exploitation, and injustice are not automatically in dialogue with each other and are not guaranteed to speak the same language. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 768 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Scholars of whiteness divide between affirming a positive white identity and abolishing whiteness entirely — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 769; Whiteness scholars disagree fundamentally and are not automatically in dialogue — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 768

Broader Connections

• Whiteness scholars disagree fundamentally and are not automatically in dialogue #corroborates (0.95) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 768