Problematising the discourses of the dominant: whiteness and reconciliation

Abstract

This article investigates how unacknowledged power can affect the political actions of those in the dominant group, in this case white Australians. To do this we identify connections between the discourses used by white Australians involved in Reconciliation, the power and privilege of whiteness in Australia, and participants\u27 understandings and actions towards Reconciliation. Using discourse analysis four discourses were identified from interviews and focus groups with white Australians involved in Reconciliation. These were labelled ‘indigenous project’, ‘institutional change’, ‘challenging racism’, and ‘bringing them together’.We argue that understanding the power relations that underlie the political actions of those in dominant positions is critical to ensuring the goals of anti-racism are achieved. Discourse analysis may allow us to gain a deeper understanding of the power and the potential impacts that may flow from particular positions and how power may be made more visible to the dominant group

About being Mununga (Whitefulla): making covert group racism visible

“…and 'What can we do to work against the pressure of compliance in order to break the cycle of normalized racism?' This is the issue explored by Green and Sonn (2006), who highlight the importance of critically engaging with discourses that may unwittingly reproduce oppressive practices.…”

White clinical psychology trainees' views on racial equity within programme selection in South Africa

“…Nair (2008, 47) demonstrated in discussions about race that 'selfdeception; self-hate; guilt and shame about being white' as well as a 'distorted selfexperience of superiority and privilege' were prominent aspects that arose (Ancis and Szymanski 2001;Clark 2006;Green and Sonn 2006;Wong 1994). Most whites in post-apartheid South Africa, however, tend not to consider themselves privileged (Stevens 2007;Steyn 2004;Steyn and Foster 2008).…”

Public Sociology or Partisan Sociology? The Curious Case of Whiteness Studies

“…Whiteness studies appropriated the postmodern critique of Western epistemologythat is, whiteness constitutes a pseudo-universal category that hides its racial project behind various guises (Baez 2000;Blanchett 2006;Bowers 1996;Christian 2002;Gillman 2007;Green and Sonn 2006;Hays and Chang 2003;Johnson et al 2000;Keating 1995;Lynn and Parker 2006;Marable 2002;Perry 2001;Reitman 2006;Scheurich and Young 1997;Sleeter 1993). This project imposed a Eurocentric version of the world upon nonwhites-especially the precepts, assumptions, and values of the Enlightenment.…”

“…Western epistemic practices in the form of claims to objectivity, universality, and value neutrality distort the multidimensional nature of human existence, proclaim a "false ideology of inclusion" (Jugé and Perez 2006), and protect the interests of whites. Western epistemology is too ethnocentric, ahistorical, and abstract to capture the life worlds of nonwhites (Abrams and Gibson 2007;Bailey and Zita 2007;Barnett 2000;Cross 2005;Gordon 2005;Green and Sonn 2006;Gustafson 2007;Jeffery 2005;Lewis 2004;Mazama 1998;Perry 2001;Pruett 2002;Schick 2000;Sue 2004;Wiegman 1999;cf. Aya 2004;Hammersley 1993).…”

“… Also Gillman 2007;Green and Sonn 2006;Levine-Rasky 2000;Norton and Baker 2007;Perry 2001;Schacht 2001. …”