The Monstrous ‘White Theory Boy’: Symbolic Capital, Pedagogy and the Politics of Knowledge

Abstract

This article presents a critical uncovering of the continued dominance of whiteness and maleness in processes and practices of knowledge formation. Tracking the figure of the ‘white theory boy’ or ‘dead white man’ across experiential accounts of theory, scholarship on canonicity, and pedagogical strategies, the article demonstrates his enduring authority in theoretical knowledge making and dissemination. Where this article moves somewhere different is its suggestion that a space of sympathy be extended to this hegemonic figure. Though the dominance of the ‘white theory boy’ undoubtedly perpetuates inequalities throughout social theoretic thought, it is necessary to locate a new method of tackling such ingrained problems. Though extending sympathy to the ‘white theory boy’ is perhaps initially counter-intuitive, my suggestion is that he does not hold the sort of monolithic power we might first assume. Bringing an intersectional analysis of gender, class, ‘race’ and ethnicity to bear on this figure, creates a space in which a more critical and fine-grained account of the relationship between power, knowledge, and social status can be uncovered. It is through extending this space of sympathy and mutual cooperation to ‘white theory boys’ that the practical and conceptual machinations of their power are further revealed. From here a more thorough dismantling of this power becomes possible.

Exploring consumers’ attitude formation toward their own brands when in crisis: cross-national comparisons between USA and China

“…In summary, all the constructs from both country samples satisfied all the required tests for reliability and validity. Accessing measurement invariance of the measured constructs By nature, cross-cultural studies adopt measurement instruments that cannot be universally applied to multiple cultures and/or nations because the instruments developed in one culture might possibly cause an unexpected bias toward another culture; the required linguistic translation process might mislead subjects' opinions on survey questions (Burton, 2015;Jeong and Lee, 2019). Accordingly, to avoid obtaining misleading results due to invalid measurement tools, all crosscultural studies that quantitatively compare groups of people from different cultures should conduct invariance tests that enable researchers to measure and confirm whether the instrument is operative and applicable across different cultures, although a majority of the cultural studies in academia, unfortunately, disregard this statistical consideration.…”

‘An interesting paper but not sufficiently theoretical’: What does theorising in social research look like?

“…Indeed this view of language allows us to balance theorising as the work of the autonomous individual with a ‘practice based’ perspective (Gherardi, 2000) in which language is constructed in communities of practice. If we only look at autonomy, we might idealise the research process and its ‘beguiling’ rhetoric (see Bourdieu, 1991; Johnson et al, 2000); if we only look at practice, including distortions at the structural (Scott, 2000) and ideological (Burton, 2015) levels, we might lose sight of autonomy altogether. We need a way to understand theorising as about individual cognition within a distributed context and Vygotsky provides part of the answer.…”

Consequences of Not Conducting Measurement Invariance Tests in Cross-Cultural Studies: A Review of Current Research Practices and Recommendations

“…Typically, instruments developed from U.S. samples are translated into other languages and readily used in non-Western cultures without cultural and linguistic consideration. In addition, instruments developed based on Western theories may have a potential bias toward middle-class, Caucasian males because a majority of the theorists, targeted audiences, and study participants represent this group (Burton, 2015). This bias raises the possibility that these instruments may not be operationalized the same for different groups including different genders, as well as social, educational, or occupational subgroups within populations.…”